Shri Bishnu Chandra Dutta, Tripura V. Income Tax Officer, Ward-Udaipur, Agartala

ITA 262/GTY/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1021 (ITAT-GUWAHATI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-06-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 26-09-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M K DAS
• Assessee Lawyers: N O N E
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Question of law
• Section: 271(1)(c); 274; 69

Judgement Text

1 ITA NO. 262/GAU/2018 SHRI BISHNU CHANDRA DUTTA, AY- 2014-15 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL GUWAH ATI BENCH, E COURT AT KOLKATA ( ) . . , . , ) [BEFORE SHRI A. T. VARKEY, JM & DR. A. L. SAINI, A M] I.T.A. NO. 262/GAU/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 SHRI BISHNU CHANDRA DUTTA (PAN:AHOPD8223B) VS. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-UDAIPUR APPELLANT RESPONDENT DATE OF HEARING 02.06.2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 05.06.2020 FOR THE APPELLANT N O N E FOR THE RESPONDENT SHRI M. K. DAS, ADDL. CIT ORDER PER SHRI A.T.VARKEY, JM THIS APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), SHILLONG DATED 24.07.2018 FOR AY 2014-15 AGAINST THE CONFIRM ATION OF PENALTY IMPOSED U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT). 2. THOUGH NONE APPEARED FOR THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIM E OF HEARING IN THE MIDST OF COVID - 19 PANDEMIC WE NOTE THAT THE FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE AO PASSED U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT DATED 29.12 .2017 FOR AY 2014-15 IS BAD AND IRREGULAR IN LAW. WHILE GOING THROUGH THE PENALTY ORDER PASSED BY AO WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF THE LD. DR APPEARING FOR THE REVENUE, IT HAS COME T O OUR NOTICE THAT THE AO AT PAGE 2 OF THE IMPUGNED PENALTY ORDER SECOND PARA (NOT NUMBERED) R EADS AS UNDER: A NOTICE U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE I. T. ACT, 1961 WA S ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE INITIATING PENALTY PROCEEDINGS FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME/FURNISHING IN ACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME FIXING THE DATE OF HEARING ON 20.10.2016 BUT THERE WAS NO COMP LIANCE FROM THE ASSESSEE . . .. SO, IT IS A FIT CASE FOR IMPOSING PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS/CONCEALMENT OF INCOME AND THEN LEVIED A PENALTY OF RS.7,65,378/- 2 ITA NO. 262/GAU/2018 SHRI BISHNU CHANDRA DUTTA, AY- 2014-15 3. WE NOTE THAT THE CHALLENGE OF THE ASSESSEE IS AG AINST THE ORDER OF THE AO WHICH ACCORDING TO HIM IS BAD AND IRREGULAR IN LAW. THIS FACT OF AO ISSUING NOTICE U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT TO THE ASSESSEE SHOW CAUSING HIM AS TO W HY PENALTY SHOULD NOT BE LEVIED AGAINST HIM FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME/FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PART ICULARS OF INCOME WAS CONFRONTED TO THE LD. DR AS WELL AS THE FACT THAT T HE AO HAS CONCLUDED IN THE IMPUGNED PENALTY ORDER THAT HE FOUND IT A FIT CASE FOR IMPO SING PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT FOR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME/CONC EALMENT OF INCOME. THE LD. DR WAS OF THE OPINION THAT EVEN THOUGH THE AO WITHOUT NOT STR IKING DOWN ONE OF THE FAULT I.E. EITHER CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE P ARTICULARS OF INCOME STILL THE ASSESSEE WOULD UNDERSTAND THE CHARGE AGAINST HIM SINCE ASSES SMENT ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED PURSUANT TO WHICH ONLY PENALTY HAS BEEN INITIATED A GAINST THE ASSESSEE. HE HAS MADE CERTAIN ARGUMENTS AS WELL AS RELIED ON CERTAIN JUDGMENTS WH ICH WE WOULD BE DEALING LATER. HOWEVER, THE FACT REMAINS THAT THE AO HAS ISSUED SH OW CAUSE TO THE ASSESSEE AS TO WHY PENALTY PROCEEDINGS SHOULD NOT BE INITIATED AGAINST HIM FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME/FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME WITHOUT STRIKING DOWN ONE OF THE FAULT AGAINST WHICH HE WANTED TO PROCEED AGAINST THE ASSE SSEE AND ALSO HE HAS FOUND THAT HE HAS COMMITTED BOTH THE FAULTS I.E. FURNISHING OF INACCU RATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND CONCEALMENT OF INCOME WHICH ACTION OF THE AO IS BAD IN LAW AND, THEREFORE, NECESSARILY HAS TO BE STRUCK DOWN FOR THE REASONS GIVEN INFRA. 4. IT IS NOTED THAT THIS TRIBUNAL IS TAKING A CON SISTENT VIEW THAT IF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE AO PROPOSING PENALTY ON THE ASSESSEE U/S. 271(1)(C ) OF THE ACT, HE SHOULD MAKE IT CLEAR WHETHER THE FAULT FOR WHICH PENALTY IS BEING PROPOS ED TO BE LEVIED IS FOR CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULAR OF INCOME OR FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME. IT IS NOTED THAT THE AO HAS NOT SPECIFIED THE FAULT BY NOT STRI KING OUT WHICH IS APPLICABLE, THEREFORE, IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SSAS EMERALD MEADOWS IN ITA NO.380 OF 2015 DATED 23.11.2 015 WHEREIN THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT FOLLOWING ITS OWN DECISION IN THE CASE O F CIT VS MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY (2013) 359 ITR 565 TOOK A VIEW THAT IMPOSING OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT IS BAD IN LAW AND INVALID FOR THE REASON TH AT THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE U/S 274 OF THE ACT 3 ITA NO. 262/GAU/2018 SHRI BISHNU CHANDRA DUTTA, AY- 2014-15 DOES NOT SPECIFY THE CHARGE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AS TO WHETHER IT IS FOR CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE P ARTICULARS OF INCOME. WE ALSO NOTE THAT AS AGAINST THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT THE REVENUE PREFERRED AN APPEAL IN SLP IN CC NO.11485 OF 2016 AND THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT BY ITS ORDER DATED 05.08.2016 DISMISSED THE SLP PREFERRED BY THE DEPARTMENT. WE A LSO NOTE THAT THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS SHR I SAMSON PERINCHERY IN ITA NO.1154 OF 2014 DATED 05.01.2017 WHEREIN THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY (SUPRA) CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT IMPOSIT ION OF PENALTY ON DEFECTIVE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE WITHOUT SPECIFYING THE CHARGE AGAINST THE AS SESSEE CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. WE ALSO NOTE THAT THE DECISION OF ITAT IN THE CASE OF SUVAPRASAN NA BHATTACHARYA VS ACIT IN ITA NO.1303/KOL/2010 DATED 06.11.2015 WHEREIN IDENTICAL PROPOSITION HAS BEEN FOLLOWED BY THE TRIBUNAL. 5. LD. DR VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE LO WER AUTHORITIES AND URGED BEFORE THE BENCH NOT TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDERS OF THE LOW ER AUTHORITIES AND CITED VARIOUS CASE LAWS. WE NOTE THAT ALL THE CASE LAWS CITED BEFORE US BY THE LD. DR HAS BEEN DEALT WITH ELABORATELY BY THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNA L IN THE CASE OF JEETMAL CHORARIA VS. ACIT, ITA NO. 956/KOL/2016 FOR AY 2010-11 DATED 01. 12.2017, WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL HAS NOTED AS UNDER: 7. THE LEARNED DR SUBMITTED THAT THE HONBLE CA LCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF DR.SYAMAL BARAN MONDAL VS. CIT (2011) 244 CTR 631 ( CAL) HAS TAKEN A VIEW THAT SEC.271 DOES NOT MANDATE THAT THE RECORDING OF SATISFACTION ABOUT CONCEALMENT OF INCOME MUST BE IN SPECIFIC TERMS AND WORDS AND THAT SATISFACTION OF A O MUST REFLECT FROM THE ORDER EITHER WITH EXPRESSED WORDS RECORDED BY THE AO OR BY HIS OVERT ACT AND ACTION. IN OUR VIEW THIS DECISION IS ON THE QUESTION OF RECORDING SATISFACTION AND NO T IN THE CONTEXT OF SPECIFIC CHARGE IN THE MANDATORY SHOW CAUSE NOTICE U/S.274 OF THE ACT. TH EREFORE REFERENCE TO THIS DECISION, IN OUR VIEW IS NOT OF ANY HELP TO THE PLEA OF THE REVENUE BEFORE US. 8. THE LEARNED DR RELIED ON THREE DECISIONS OF MU MBAI ITAT VIZ., (I) DHANRAJ MILLS PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT ITA NO.3830 & 3833/MUM/2009 DATED 21.3.201 7; (II) EARTHMOVING EQUIPMENT SERVICE CORPORATION VS. DCIT 22(2), MUMBAI, (2017) 84 TAXMANN.COM 51 (III) MAHESH M.GANDHI VS. ACIT VS. ACIT ITA NO.2976/MUM/2016 DAT ED 27.2.2017. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON TWO DECISIONS OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT V IZ., (I) CIT VS. KAUSHALYA 216 ITR 660(BOM) AND (II) M/S.MAHARAJ GARAGE & CO. VS. CIT DATED 22.8.2017. THIS DECISION WAS REFERRED TO IN THE WRITTEN NOTE GIVEN BY THE LEARNE D DR. THIS IS AN UNREPORTED DECISION AND A 4 ITA NO. 262/GAU/2018 SHRI BISHNU CHANDRA DUTTA, AY- 2014-15 COPY OF THE SAME WAS NOT FURNISHED. HOWEVER A GIST OF THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN THE DECISION HAS BEEN GIVEN IN THE WRITTEN NOTE FILED BEFORE US. 9. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KAUSHALYA (SUPRA), THE H ONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HELD THAT SECTION 274 OR ANY OTHER PROVISION IN THE ACT OR THE RULES, DO ES NOT EITHER MANDATE THE GIVING OF NOTICE OR ITS ISSUANCE IN A PARTICULAR FO RM. PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE QUASI-CRIMINAL IN NATURE. SECTION 274 CONTAINS THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE OF THE A SSESSEE BEING HEARD BEFORE LEVYING PENALTY. RULES OF NATURAL JUSTICE CANNOT BE IMPRISONED IN ANY STRAIGHT-JACKET FORMULA. FOR SUSTAINING A COMPLAINT OF FAILURE OF THE PRINCI PLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE ON THE GROUND OF ABSENCE OF OPPORTUNITY, IT HAS TO BE ESTABLISHED TH AT PREJUDICE IS CAUSED TO THE CONCERNED PERSON BY THE PROCEDURE FOLLOWED. THE ISSUANCE OF N OTICE IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE DEVICE FOR INFORMING THE ASSESSEE ABOUT THE PROPOSAL TO LEVY P ENALTY IN ORDER TO ENABLE HIM TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY IT SHOULD NOT BE DONE. MERE MISTAKE IN THE L ANGUAGE USED OR MERE NON-STRIKING OF THE INACCURATE PORTION CANNOT BY ITSELF INVALIDATE THE NOTICE. THE ITAT MUMBAI BENCH IN THE CASE OF DHANRAJ MILLS PVT.LTD. (SUPRA) FOLLOWED THE DECI SION RENDERED BY THE JURISDICTIONAL HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF KAUSHALYA (SUPRA) AND CHOSE NOT TO FOLLOW DECISION OF HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MANJUNA THA COTTON & GINNING FACTORY (SUPRA). RELIANCE WAS ALSO PLACED BY THE ITAT MUMBAI IN THIS DECISION ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE PATNA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. MITHILA MOTOR 'S (P.) LTD. [1984] 149 ITR 751 (PATNA) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT UNDER SECTION 274 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, ALL THAT IS REQUIRED IS THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO SHOW CAUSE. NO STATUTORY NOTICE HAS BEEN PRESCRIBED IN THIS BEHALF. HENCE, IT IS SUFFICIENT IF THE ASSESSEE WAS AWARE OF THE CHARGES HE HAD TO MEET AND WAS GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING H EARD. A MISTAKE IN THE NOTICE WOULD NOT INVALIDATE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. 10. IN THE CASE OF EARTHMOVING EQUIPMENT SERVICE CO RPORATION (SUPRA), THE ITAT MUMBAI DID NOT FOLLOW THE DECISION RENDERED IN THE CASE OF MANJUNATHA COTTON & GINNING FACTORY (SUPRA) FOR THE REASON THAT PENALTY IN THAT CASE WA S DELETED FOR SO MANY REASONS AND NOT SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF DEFECT IN SHOW CAUSE NOTICE U/S.274 OF THE ACT. THIS IS NOT FACTUALLY CORRECT. ONE OF THE PARTIES BEFORE THE GROUP OF ASSESSEES BE FORE THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MANJUNATHA COTTON & GINNING (SUPRA) WAS AN ASSES SEE BY NAME M/S.VEERABHADRAPPA SANGAPPA & CO., IN ITA NO.5020 OF 2009 WHICH WAS A N APPEAL BY THE REVENUE. THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT ON PERUSAL OF THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, IT IS CLEAR THAT IT IS A STANDARD PROFORMA USED BY THE ASSESSIN G AUTHORITY. BEFORE ISSUING THE NOTICE THE INAPPROPRIATE WORDS AND PARAGRAPHS WERE NEITHER STR UCK OFF NOR DELETED. THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY WAS NOT SURE AS TO WHETHER SHE HAD PROCEE DED ON THE BASIS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD EITHER CONCEALED ITS INCOME OR HAS FURNISHED INACCU RATE DETAILS. THE NOTICE IS NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENT OF THE PARTICULAR S ECTION AND THEREFORE IT IS A VAGUE NOTICE, WHICH IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO A PATENT NON APPLICATION O F MIND ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY. FURTHER, IT HELD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFI CER HAD MADE ADDITIONS UNDER SECTION 69 OF THE ACT BEING UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT. IN THE APPEAL , THE SAID FINDING WAS SET-ASIDE. BUT ADDITION WAS SUSTAINED ON A NEW GROUND, THAT IS UND ER VALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK. SINCE THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY HAD INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDIN GS BASED ON THE ADDITIONS MADE UNDER SECTION 69 OF THE ACT, WHICH WAS STRUCK DOWN BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY, THE INITIATED PENAL PROCEEDINGS, NO LONGER EXISTS. IF THE APPELLATE AUT HORITY HAD INITIATED PENAL PROCEEDINGS ON THE BASIS OF THE ADDITION SUSTAINED UNDER A NEW GRO UND IT HAS A LEGAL SANCTUM. THIS WAS NOT SO IN THIS CASE AND THEREFORE, ON BOTH THE GROUNDS THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY AS WELL AS THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY WAS SE T-ASIDE BY ITS ORDER DATED 9TH APRIL, 2009. AGGRIEVED BY THE SAID ORDER, THE REVENUE FILED APPE AL BEFORE HIGH COURT. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT FRAMED THE FOLLOWING QUESTION OF LAW IN THE S AID APPEAL VIZ., 1. WHETHER THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) IN THE PRINTED FORM WITHOUT SPECIFICALLY MENTIONING WHETHER THE PROCEEDINGS ARE INITIATED ON THE GROUND OF CONCEALM ENT OF INCOME OR ON ACCOUNT OF FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS IS VALID AND LEGAL? 2. WH ETHER THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY THE 5 ITA NO. 262/GAU/2018 SHRI BISHNU CHANDRA DUTTA, AY- 2014-15 ASSESSING AUTHORITY WAS LEGAL AND VALID? THE HONB LE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT HELD IN THE NEGATIVE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE ON BOTH THE QUESTI ONS. THEREFORE THE DECISION RENDERED BY THE ITAT MUMBAI IN THE CASE OF EARTHMOVING EQUIPMEN T SERVICE CORPORATION (SUPRA) IS OF NO ASSISTANCE TO THE PLEA OF THE REVENUE BEFORE US. 11. IN THE CASE OF M/S.MAHARAJ GARAGE & CO. VS. CI T DATED 22.8.2017 REFERRED TO IN THE WRITTEN NOTE GIVEN BY THE LEARNED DR, WHICH IS AN UNREPORTED DECISION AND A COPY OF THE SAME WAS NOT FURNISHED, THE SAME PROPOSITION AS WAS LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SMT.KAUSHALYA (SUPRA) APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN REITERATED, AS IS EVIDENT FROM THE EXTRACTS FURNISHED IN THE WRITTEN NOTE FURNISHE D BY THE LEARNED DR BEFORE US. 12. IN THE CASE OF TRISHUL ENTERPRISES ITA NO.384 & 385/MUM/2014, THE MUMBAI BENCH OF ITAT FOLLOWED THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SMT.KAUSHALYA (SUPRA). 13. IN THE CASE OF MAHESH M.GANDHI (SUPRA) THE MUM BAI ITAT THE ITAT HELD THAT THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE MANJUNATHA COTTON & GINNING (SUPRA) WILL NOT BE APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THAT CASE BECAUSE THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHILE INITIATING PENALTY PROCEEDINGS HAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CONCEALED PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND MERELY BECAUSE IN THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE U/S.274 OF THE ACT, THERE IS NO MENTION WHETHER THE PROCEEDINGS ARE FOR FURNISHING INACCURA TE PARTICULARS OR CONCEALING PARTICULARS OF INCOME, THAT WILL NOT VITIATE THE PENALTY PROCEEDIN GS. IN THE PRESENT CASE THERE IS NO WHISPHER IN THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT ON THIS ASPECT. WE HAVE POINTED OUT THIS ASPECT IN THE EARLIER PART OF THIS ORDER. HENCE, THIS DECISION WILL NOT BE OF ANY ASSISTANCE TO THE PLEA OF THE REVENUE BEFORE US. EVEN OTHERWISE THIS DECISION DOES NOT FO LLOW THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MANJUNATHA COTT ON & GINNING (SUPRA) IN AS MUCH AS THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN THE SAID CASE WAS ONLY WITH REFE RENCE TO SHOW CAUSE NOTICE U/S.274 OF THE ACT. THE HONBLE COURT DID NOT LAY DOWN A PROPOSIT ION THAT THE DEFECT IN THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE WILL STAND CURED IF THE INTENTION OF THE CHA RGE U/S.271(1) (C ) IS DISCERNIBLE FROM A READING OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN WHICH THE PENALT Y WAS INITIATED. 14. FROM THE AFORESAID DISCUSSION IT CAN BE SEEN T HAT THE LINE OF REASONING OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT AND THE HONBLE PATNA HIGH COURT IS THAT ISSUANCE OF NOTICE IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE DEVICE FOR INFORMING THE ASSESSEE AB OUT THE PROPOSAL TO LEVY PENALTY IN ORDER TO ENABLE HIM TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY IT SHOULD NOT BE DO NE. MERE MISTAKE IN THE LANGUAGE USED OR MERE NON-STRIKING OF THE INACCURATE PORTION CANNOT BY ITSELF INVALIDATE THE NOTICE. THE TRIBUNAL BENCHES AT MUMBAI AND PATNA BEING SUBORDIN ATE TO THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT AND PATNA HIGH COURT ARE BOUND TO FOLLOW THE AFORES AID VIEW. THE TRIBUNAL BENCHS AT BANGALORE HAVE TO FOLLOW THE DECISION OF THE HONBL E KARNATAKA HIGH COURT. AS FAR AS BENCHES OF TRIBUNAL IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS ARE CONC ERNED, THERE ARE TWO VIEWS ON THE ISSUE, ONE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE RENDERED BY THE HONBLE K ARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MANJUNATHA COTTON & GINNING (SUPRA) AND OTHER OF TH E HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SMT.KAUSHALYA. IT IS SETTLED LEGAL POSITI ON THAT WHERE TWO VIEWS ARE AVAILABLE ON AN ISSUE, THE VIEW FAVOURABLE TO THE ASSESSEE HAS TO B E FOLLOWED. WE THEREFORE PREFER TO FOLLOW THE VIEW EXPRESSED BY THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH CO URT IN THE CASE OF MANJUNATHA COTTON & GINNING (SUPRA). 15. WE HAVE ALREADY OBSERVED THAT THE SHOW CAUSE N OTICE ISSUED IN THE PRESENT CASE U/S 274 OF THE ACT DOES NOT SPECIFY THE CHARGE AGAINST THE ASS ESSEE AS TO WHETHER IT IS FOR CONCEALING PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHING INACCURATE PART ICULARS OF INCOME. THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE U/S 274 OF THE ACT DOES NOT STRIKE OUT THE INAPPROP RIATE WORDS. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IMPOSITION OF PENALTY CANNOT BE SU STAINED. THE PLEA OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS BASED ON THE DECISIONS REFERRED T O IN THE EARLIER PART OF THIS ORDER HAS TO BE 6 ITA NO. 262/GAU/2018 SHRI BISHNU CHANDRA DUTTA, AY- 2014-15 ACCEPTED. WE THEREFORE HOLD THAT IMPOSITION OF PENA LTY IN THE PRESENT CASE CANNOT BE SUSTAINED AND THE SAME IS DIRECTED TO BE CANCELLED. 6. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID ORDER OF TH E COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL, WE, THEREFORE, HOLD THAT IMPOSITION OF PENALTY AND SUBSEQUENTLY CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN THE PRESENT CASE CANNOT BE SUSTAINED AND THE SAME IS HEREBY DELETED. THEREFORE, THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED . ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 5TH JUNE, 2020 SD/- SD/- (DR. A. L. SAINI) (ABY. T. VARKEY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 5TH JUNE, 2020 JD.(SR.P.S.) COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT SHRI BISHNU CHANDRA DUTTA, KHUDIRAM PALLI, AMARPUR, GOMATI, TRIPURA-799101. 2 RESPONDENT ITO, WARD-UDAIPUR, AGARTALA CITY CEN TRE, PARADISE CHOWMUHANI, CAMP AGARTALA-799001. 3. 4. CIT(A), SHILLONG CIT-, , SHILLONG 5. DR, ITAT, GUWAHATI. / TRUE COPY, BY ORDER, SENIOR PVT. SECY.