Jay Prakash Didwania, Bhubaneswar V. ACIT, Circle- 2, Bhubaneswar

ITA 238/CTK/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 108 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9330 (ITAT-CUTTACK)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-03-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 27-11-2020
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S C MOHANTY
• Keywords: Question of law
• Section: 271(1)(c); 201; 292BB; 274; 251; 73; 13

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK . . , . . , BEFORE SHRI C.M. GARG, JM & SHRI L.P. SAHU, AM . / ITA NO S . 238 TO 240 /C TK/20 20 ( / A YS. : 20 1 0 - 2011 TO 2012 - 2013 ) JAY PRAKASH DIDWANIA, PLOT NO.1, LAXMI SAGAR, CUTTACK ROAD, BHUBANESWAR - 751006 VS THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, BHUBANESWAR ./ PAN NO. : A EIPD 9999 P AND . / ITA NOS.241 TO 243 /CTK/2020 ( / AYS. :2010 - 2011 TO 2012 - 2013) ANITA DIDWANIA, PLOT NO.1, LAXMI SAGAR, CUTTACK ROAD, BHUBANESWAR - 751006 VS. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, BHUBANESWAR ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AA JPD 572 7 B AND . / ITA NO S.244 TO 247/CTK/2020 ( / AYS. :2010 - 2011 TO 2012 - 2013 & 2015 - 2016) BINA DIDWANIA, PLOT NO.1, LAXMI SAGAR, CUTTACK ROAD, BHUBANESWAR - 751006 VS. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, BHUBANESWAR ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AAJPD 5727 A AND . / ITA NOS. 248 TO 251 /CTK/2020 ( / AYS. :2010 - 2011 TO 2012 - 2013 & 2015 - 2016 ) OM PRAKASH DIDWANIA, PLOT NO.1, LAXMI SAGAR, CUTTACK ROAD, BHUBANESWAR - 751006 VS. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, BHUBANESWAR ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : A ATPD 6374 R ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) /ASSESSEE BY : SHRI MOHIT SHETH , AR /REVENUE BY : SHRI S.C.MOHANTY , DR / DATE OF HEARING : 03 / 03 /20 21 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 05 /03/2021 ITA NO S . 238 - 251 /CTK/20 20 2 / O R D E R PER BENCH : TH ESE FOURTEEN APPEALS FILED BY THE FOUR DIFFERENT ASSESSEE S ARE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) - 2 , BHUBANESWAR , ALL DATED 08.09.2020 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 20 10 - 2011 TO 201 2 - 201 3 & 2015 - 2016. 2 . THE SOLE ISSUE INVOLVED IN ALL THE APPEALS IS THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN LEVYING PENALTY U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE ACT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION. 3. AT THE OUTSET, LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE AO U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE ACT , ALL DATED 26. 12 .201 7 FOR A.Y.2010 - 2011 TO 2012 - 2013 & 2015 - 2016 , COPY OF WHICH ARE PLACED ON RECORD AND POINTED OUT THEREFROM THAT IN THE SAID NOTICE, THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER HAS STATED AS UNDER: ** * HAVE CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF YOUR INCOME OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME, PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S.271(1)(C) IS HEREBY INITIATED. 4. HE SUBMITTED THAT IT IS NOT CLEAR FROM THE SAID NOTICE IS SUED U/S.274/271(1)(C) OF THE ACT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHETHER THE SHOW CAUSE IS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE FOR CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FOR FURNISHING INAC CURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. HE RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING JUDGMENTS : - I) CIT VS. MAN JUNATHA COTTON & GINNING FACTORY (2013) 359 ITR 565; II) JEETMAL CHORARIA VS. ACIT, CIRCLE - 43(KOL), ITA NO.956/KOL/2016; ITA NO S . 238 - 251 /CTK/20 20 3 III) CIT VS. SSA EMERALD MEADOWS, ITA NO.380/2015, IV) GAGANBIHARI SATRUSALYA VS. DCIT, CIR - 2(1), BBSR, ITA NO.458/CTK/2017; AND V) CIT VS. RELIANCE PETRO PRODUCTS PVT. LTD., 322 ITR 158 IN ADDITION TO THE ABOVE, HE ALSO RELIED ON THE JUDGMENTS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 5. H E SUBMITTED THAT THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SSAS. EM E R A LD MEADOWS DATED 11 T H JANUARY, 2017 PASSED IN SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (CC NO.11485/2016)/73 TAXMANN.COM 248 (SC) HAS HELD THAT OMISSION BY THE AO TO EXPLICITLY SPECIFY IN THE PENALTY NOTICE AS TO WHETHER PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE BEING INITIATED FOR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE P ARTICULARS OR FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME MAKES THE PENALTY ORDER LIABLE FOR CANCELLATION. HENCE, HE SUBMITTED THAT PENALTY IMPOSED IN ALL THE CASES BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE ACT IS, THEREFORE, LIABLE TO BE CANCELLED. 6 . O N THE OTHER HAND , LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF BOTH THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO ANY AMBIGUITY IN THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE AO. THE NOTICE IS A PRINTED FORM WHICH HAS BEEN ISSUED BY THE AO AND THERE IS A CLEAR - CUT CONCEALMENT OF INCOME . LD. DR FUR THER SUBMITTED THAT IN THE NOTICE THE AO TOOK ONE OF THE LIMB I.E. CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULAR OF INCOME. THEREFORE, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ACCEPTABLE AND HE ALSO SUPPORTED THE JUDGMENTS CITED BY THE CIT(A) AND ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE HONBLE SUPRE ME COURT IN THE ITA NO S . 238 - 251 /CTK/20 20 4 CASE OF SUNDARAM FINANCE LIMITED VS. DCIT (2018) 259 TAXMAN 0220 (SC) HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT SECTION 292BB OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 IS APPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT CASE. IN THIS REGARD, LD. DR RE LIED ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. LAXMAN DAS KHANDELWAL, [2019] 108 TAXMANN.COM 183 (SC). ACCORDINGLY, LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE AO AND CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A) DESERVES TO BE UPHELD FOR THE BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER APPEAL S . 7 . AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE SIDES AND PERUSING THE ENTIRE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE FACTS IN THE PRESENT APPEAL ARE NOT IN DISPUTE AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS LEVIED RESPECTIVE PE NALTY U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE ACT FOR THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION. 8. HON'BLE APEX COURT VIDE JUDGMENT IN CASE OF M/S. SSA'S EMERALD MEADOWS, (2016) 73 TAXMANN.COM 248(SC) DISMISSED THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE JUDGMENT RENDERED BY HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA WHEREBY IDENTICAL ISSUE WAS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. OPERATIVE PART OF THE JUDGMENT IN CASE OF M/S. SSA'S EMERALD MEADOWS (SUPRA) DECIDED BY HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA IS REP RODUCED BELOW : - '2. THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED RAISING THE FOLLOWING SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW: ITA NO S . 238 - 251 /CTK/20 20 5 (1) WHETHER, OMISSION IF ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXPLICITLY MENTION THAT PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE BEING INITIATED FOR FURNISHING OF INACCU RATE PARTICULARS OR THAT FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME MAKES THE PENALTY ORDER LIABLE FOR CANCELLATION EVEN WHEN IT HAS BEEN PROVED BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CONCEALED INCOME IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE? (2 WHETHE R, ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE TRIBUNAL WAS JUSTIFIED IN LAW IN. HOLDING THAT THE PENALTY NOTICE UNDER SECTION 274 R.W.S. 271(1)(C) IS HAD IN LAW AND. INVALID IN SPITE THE AMENDMENT OF SECTION 271(1 B) WITH RETROSPECTIV E EFFECT AND BY VIRTUE OF THE AMENDMENT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS INITIATED THE PENALTY BY PROPERLY RECORDING THE SATISFACTION FOR THE SAME? (3) WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE TRIBUNAL WAS JUSTIFIED IN DECIDING THE APPEALS AGAINST THE REVENUE ON THE BASIS OF NOTICE ISSUED, UNDER SECTION 274 WITHOUT TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS SPECIFIED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CONCEALED PARTICULARS OF INCOME? 3. THE TRIBUNAL HAS ALLOWED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE HOLDING THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 274 READ WITH SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (FOR SHORT 'THE ACT') TO BE BAD IN LAW AS IT DID NOT SPECIFY WHICH LIMB OF SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE A CT, THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS HAD BEEN INITIATED I.E., WHETHER FOR CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. .THE TRIBUNAL, WHILE ALLOWING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE, HAS RELIED 01 THE DERISION OF THE DIVISION BE NCH OF THIS COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OR INCOME T AX - VS - MANJUNATHA C OTTON AND G INNING F ACTORY (2013) 359 ITR 565. 4. IN OUR VIEW, SINCE THE MATTER IS COVERED BY JUDGMENT OF THE DIVISION BENCH OF THIS COURT, WE ARE OF THE OPINION, NO SU BSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW ARISES IN THIS APPEAL FOR DETERMINATION BY THIS COURT, THE APPEAL IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED.' 9. BARE PERUSAL OF THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT APPARENTLY GOES TO PROVE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER INITIATED THE PENA LTY PROCEEDINGS BY ISSUING THE NOTICE U/S 274/271(1)(C) OF THE ACT WITHOUT SPECIFYING WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAS CONCEALED ''PARTICULARS OF INCOME' OR ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED 'INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME', SO AS TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASS ESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE SHOW ITA NO S . 238 - 251 /CTK/20 20 6 CAUSE NOTICE. RATHER NOTICE IN THIS CASE HAS BEEN ISSUED IN A STEREOTYPED MANNER WITHOUT APPLYING ANY MIND WHICH IS BAD IN LAW, HENCE IS NOT A VALID NOTICE SUFFICIENT TO IMPOSE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 10. THE PENALTY PRO VISIONS OF SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT ARE ATTRACTED WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME. IT IS ALSO A WELL - ACCEPTED PROPOSITION THAT THE AFORESAID TWO LIMBS OF SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT CARRY DIFFERENT MEANINGS. THEREFORE, IT WAS IMPERATIVE FOR THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO STRIKE - OFF THE IRRELEVANT LIMB SO AS TO MAKE THE ASSESSEE AWARE AS TO WHAT IS THE CHARGE MADE AGAINST HIM SO THAT HE CAN RESPOND ACCORDINGLY. THE HON'BLE KARNATAK A HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MANJUNATHA COTTON & GINNING FACTORY, 359 ITR 565 (KAR) OBSERVED THAT THE LEVY OF PENALTY HAS TO BE CLEAR AS TO THE LIMB UNDER WHICH IT IS BEING LEVIED. AS PER HON'BLE HIGH COURT, WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER PROPOSED TO INVOKE F IRST LIMB BEING CONCEALMENT, THEN THE NOTICE HAS TO BE APPROPRIATELY MARKED. THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT HELD THAT THE STANDARD PROFORMA OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 274 OF THE ACT WITHOUT STRIKING OF THE IRRELEVANT CLAUSES WOULD LEAD TO AN INFERENCE OF NON - APPLICAT ION OF MIND BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF DILIP N. SHROFF VS. JCIT, 291 ITR 519 (SC) HAS ALSO NOTICED THAT WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUES NOTICE UNDER SECTION 274 OF THE ACT IN THE STANDARD PROFORMA AND THE INAPPROP RIATE WORDS ITA NO S . 238 - 251 /CTK/20 20 7 ARE NOT DELETED, THE SAME WOULD POSTULATE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT SURE AS TO WHETHER HE WAS TO PROCEED ON THE BASIS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. ACCORDIN G TO THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT, IN SUCH A SITUATION, LEVY OF PENALTY SUFFERS FROM NON - APPLICATION OF MIND. IN THE BACKGROUND OF THE AFORESAID LEGAL POSITION AND, HAVING REGARD TO THE MANNER IN WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ISSUED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 274 R.W.S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT , ALL DATED 26. 12 .201 7 FOR THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION WITHOUT STRIKING OFF THE IRRELEVANT WORDS, THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS SHOW A NON - APPLICATION OF MIND BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND IS, THUS, UNSUST AINABLE. 11. THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT APPEAL ARE IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE BEFORE THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SSAS. EMARLD MEADOWS(SUPRA) AND, THEREFORE, THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT SQUARELY APPLIES TO THE CASE OF THE ASSES SEE. HENCE, PENALTY U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE ACT IMPOSED BY THE AO AND UPHELD BY THE LD. CIT(A), BASED ON A DEFECTIVE NOTICE, CANNOT BE HELD GOOD, CORRECT AND SUSTAINABLE AS PER THE PROPOSITION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT. 12. FURTHER, THE CONTENTION OF THE L D. DR THAT SECTION 292BB OF THE ACT IS APPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT CASE, IS NOT ACCEPTABLE BECAUSE AFTER CAREFUL READING OF SECTION 292BB OF THE ACT, WE FOUND THAT THIS SECTION IS APPLICABLE FOR ISSUANCE OF NOTICE, WHICH IS NOT IN THE PRESENT CASE. THE ITA NO S . 238 - 251 /CTK/20 20 8 ASSE SSEE IS NOT DENYING THE ISSUANCE OF NOTICE AND THE ASSESSEE IS OBJECTING THE PARTICULAR LIMB REGARDING IMPOSING OF THE PENALTY IS NOT CLEAR UNDER WHICH THE AO WANTS TO IMPOSE THE PENALTY U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, THE CASE LAW RELIED ON BY THE LD . DR IN THE CASE OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. LAXMAN DAS KHANDELWAL, [2019] 108 TAXMANN.COM 183 (SC) IS NOT APPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT CASE. 13. FURTHER, THE LD. DR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO RELIED ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE APEX COUR T IN THE CASE OF SUNDARAM FINANCE LIMITED VS. DCIT (2018) 259 TAXMAN 0220 (SC) AGAINST THE DECISION OF HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT, WHICH HAS BEEN DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE IS APPLICABLE ONLY FOR THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT BECAUSE THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION HAS BEEN DISMISSED BY STATING AS THE CIVIL APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED WITH NO ORDER AS TO COSTS. I N THE DISMISSAL OF APPEAL AGAINST THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS, THERE IS NO DETAILED ORDER. WE ALSO OBSERVED IN THAT CASE, THE IMPUGNED ISSUE WAS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT AFTER LAPSE OF 10 YEARS. IN THIS CASE THE ASSESSEE IS CONTESTING THIS ISSUE RIGHT FROM THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. THEREFORE, THE CASE LAW RELIED ON BY THE LD. DR IS ALSO NOT APPLICABLE IN THE PR ESENT CASE IN HAND. THE LD. DR ALSO TRIED TO DISTINGUISH THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ANANTA GOPAL KAR A TKAL VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BALASORE, ITA NO.30 OF 2005, DATED 10.04.2019, BUT HE COULD NOT SUCCEED. FOR ITA NO S . 238 - 251 /CTK/20 20 9 COMPLET ENESS OF OUR ORDER, WE WOULD LIKE TO REPRODUCE T HE OBSERVATIONS OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT AS UNDER : - 10.04.2019 HEARD LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT AND LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT. BY WAY OF THIS APPEAL, THE APPELLANT - ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL WHEREBY THE TRIBUNAL HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL IMPOSING PENALTY. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT REFERRING TO THE RECORDING IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WITH THE HAND WRITTEN CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS IN ITIATED A PROCEEDING ONLY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AND NOTICE CAME TO BE ISSUED WAS IN PRINTED FORM WHEREIN IT HAS NOT BEEN STATED WHETHER IT WAS CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR INACCURATE INCOME. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT REL IED UPON THE DECISION OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANOTHER VERSUS 1. MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY, 2. MANJUNATH GINNING AND PRESSING, 3. VEERABHADRAPPA SANGAPPA AND CO., 4. V.S. LAD AND SONS, 5. G.M. EX PORTS AS REPORTED IN [2013] 359 ITR 565 (KARN.) RELYING ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CIT V. RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS P.LTD. : (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC) PARAGRAPHS 35 & 46. HOWEVER, CONSIDERING THAT THE RESPONDENT DISPUTED THE SAME AND RELI ED UPON TWO DECISIONS OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT, WHEREIN SLP WAS DISMISSED. ONE IS SUNDARAM FINANCE LTD. VERSUS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX REPORTED IN [2018] 99 TAXMANN.COM152 (SC), PARAGRAPHS 12 & 13 AND IN JIVANLAL AND SONS V. ASSISTANT COMMISS IONER OF ITA NO.30 OF 2005 2 INCOME - TAX REPORTED IN [2019] 103 TAXMANN.COM208(SC). TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD, THIS COURT FINDS, THERE IS NO SPECIFIC ORDER WHETHER IT WAS CONCEALMENT OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS IN VIEW OF THE DECISIONS, VIDE (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC) AND [2013] 359 ITR 565 (KARN), THE ISSUE IS REQUIRED TO BE ANSWERED AGAINST THE JUDGMENT. AS A CONSEQUENCE, THIS COURT INTERFERING IN THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT, VIDE ANNEXURE - 1 SETS ASIDE THE SAME. ON PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE DECISI ON OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, WE FOUND THAT THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAD AN OCCASION TO CONSIDER THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS IN FAVOUR OF THE ITA NO S . 238 - 251 /CTK/20 20 10 REVENUE, HOWEVER, AFTER CONSIDERING THE JUDGMENTS , THE HONBLE HIGH COURT CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THERE IS NO SPECIFIC ORDER AS TO WHETHER ANY CONCEALMENT OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF RELIANCE PETRO PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. [2010] 322 ITR 158 (SC) AND THE DECISION OF HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MANJUNATHA COTTON & GINNING FACTOR (2013) 359 ITR 565 (KAR) . CONSIDERING TO THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT AS WELL AS THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SSAS. EM E R A LD MEADOWS(SUPRA) , WE DIRECT THE AO DELETE THE PENALTY IN ALL THE CAPTIONED APPEALS FOR THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION. CONSEQUENTLY, ALL THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. 14 . IN THE RESULT, ALL APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE S ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCE D IN THE OPEN COURT ON 05 / 03 /202 1 . S D/ - ( C.M.GARG ) S D/ - (L.P.SAHU) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER CUTTACK ; DATED 05 / 0 3 /202 1 PRAKASH KUMAR MISHRA, SR.P.S. / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : / BY ORDER, ( SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY ) , / ITAT, CUTTACK 1. / THE APPELLANT - 2. / THE RESPONDENT - 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A), 4. / CIT 5. , , / DR, ITAT, CUTTACK 6. / GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY//