IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PANAJI BENCH, PANAJI BEFORE SHRI N.S. SAINI, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 277/PNJ/2015 : (A.Y 2009 - 10) BASETTEPPA B. BADAMI, NO. 10, M/S. BELGAUM PIPES & TUBES, CBS COMPLEX, OLD DHARWAR ROAD, BELGAUM PAN : ABDPB5252F (APPELLANT) VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER , WARD - 2(2), BELGAUM (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : PRAMOD Y. VAIDYA , ADV. REVENUE BY : RAMESH S. MUTAGAR, LD. DR DATE OF HEARING : 07/09/2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 07/09/2015 O R D E R PER GEORGE MATHAN : 1. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A), BELGAUM IN ITA NO. 10/BGM/2012 - 13 DT. 1.4.2015 FOR A.Y 2009 - 10 AGAINST THE CONFIRMATION OF PENALTY LEVIED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. SHRI PRAMOD Y. VAIDYA, ADVOCATE REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND SHRI RAMESH S. MUTAGAR, LD. DR REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. 2. THE LD. AR DR EW OUR ATTENTION TO PAGE 1 OF THE PAPER BOOK WHICH WAS THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 274 R.W.S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE AO HAS NOT SPECIFIED AS TO WHETHER HE WANTS TO INITIATE THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCO ME OR FOR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. IT WAS THE FURTHER SUBMISSION THAT EVEN IN THE ORDER PASSED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT THOUGH THE AO TALKS OF CONCEALMENT 2 ITA NO. 277/PNJ/2015 (A.Y : 2009 - 10) OF INCOME DE TEC TED IN THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT, HE FURTHER PROCEEDS TO SA Y THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CONCEALED HIS TRUE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MANJUNATHA COTTON & GINNING FACTORY REPORTED IN 35 TAXMANN.COM 250 (KAR) WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN CATEGORICALLY HELD THAT NOTICE U/S 274 SHOULD SPECIFICALLY STATE THE GROUNDS MENTIONED IN SEC. 271(1)(C) I.E. WHETHER IT IS FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FOR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME FAILING WHICH THE PENALTY LEVIED WOULD BE BAD IN LAW . IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE PENALTY AS LEVIED BY THE AO AND AS CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) WAS LIABLE TO BE DELETED. 3. IN REPLY, THE LD. DR VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE AO AND THE LD. CIT(A). 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. AS IT IS NOTICED THAT IN THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE THE AO HAS NOT CATEGORICALLY SPECIFIED THE GROUND ON WHICH THE PENALTY IS BEING INITIATED, IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE JURISDICTION HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA IN THE CASE OF MANJUNATHA COTTON & GINNING FACTORY REFERRED TO SUPRA , THE PENALTY AS LEVIED BY THE AO, AND AS CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) STANDS DELETED. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 07/ 09/2015. S D / - (N.S. SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER S D / - ( GEORGE MATHAN ) JUDICIAL MEMBER PLACE : PANAJI / GOA DATED : 07/09/ 201 5 *SSL* 3 ITA NO. 277/PNJ/2015 (A.Y : 2009 - 10) COPY TO : (1) APPELLANT (2) RESPONDENT (3) CIT(A) CONCERNED (4) CIT CONCERNED (5) D.R (6) GUARD FILE TRUE COPY, BY ORDER , 4 ITA NO. 277/PNJ/2015 (A.Y : 2009 - 10) DATE INITIAL ORIGINAL DICTATION PAD & DRAFT ORDER ARE ENCLOSED IN THE FILE 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 07/09/2015 SR.PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 0 7 /09/2015 SR.PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER 0 8 /09/2015 JM/AM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER 0 8 /09/2015 JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS 0 8 /09/2015 SR.PS 6. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 07/09/2015 SR.PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 0 8 /09/2015 SR.PS 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER