Ishita Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Delhi V. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 2789/DEL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6953 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 3 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-09-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 05-05-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJESH KUMAR SENIOR
• Keywords: Reasonable cause; Set aside
• Section: 271(1)(c); 250; 274; 113; 73; 27

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH C : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE) ITA NO.2789/DEL./2017 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13) M/S. ISHITA TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LTD., VS. DCIT, CI RCLE 12 (2), 2/24, ANSARI ROAD, DARYA GANJ, NEW DELHI. DELHI 110 002. (PAN : AACCI7147R) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, SENIOR DR DATE OF HEARING : 01.09.2021 DATE OF ORDER : 01.09.2021 O R D E R PER KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER : APPELLANT, M/S. ISHITA TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ASSESSEE) BY FILING THE PRESEN T APPEAL SOUGHT TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 03.02.2017 PASSE D BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-18, NEW DELHI QUA THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 CONFIRMING THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (FOR SHORT THE ACT) O N THE GROUNDS INTER ALIA THAT:- ITA NO.2789/DEL./2017 2 1.1 THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 18, NEW DELHI, TO THE EXTENT PREJUD ICIAL TO THE APPELLANT IS BAD IN LAW AND LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. 1.2 THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL S) - 18, NEW DELHI HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE PENALTY OF RS .12,72,560/- LEVIED UNDER SECTION 271 (F)(C). THE ORDER SO PASSE D BEING BAD IN LAW IS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. 2.1 THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL S) - 18, NEW DELHI HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE PENALTY LEVIE D BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) W ITHOUT SPECIFYING IN THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 271 READ WIT H SECTION 274 DATED 20.03.2015, AS TO WHETHER THE PENALTY IS LEVI ABLE FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FOR FURNISHING OF INACCURA TE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE ORDER SO PASSED UNDER SECTION 271(1) (C) IS BAD IN LAW IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH C OURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V MANJUNATHA COTTON & GINNING FACTORY (2013) 35 TAXMANN.COM 250 AND CIT V SSAS EMERLAD MEADOWS 73 TAXMANN.COM 241 (SLP FILED BY THE REVENUE HAS BEEN DISMISSED BY THE SUPREME COURT 73 TAXMANN.COM 248). 2.2 ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ORDER SO PA SSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) 18, NEW DELHI IS BAD IN LAW AND LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. 3.1 THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL S) - 18 NEW DELHI HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF AO WHO WITHOUT ARRIVING AT A PRIMA FACIE SATISFACTION AS TO THE AL LEGED CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS O F INCOME HAD LEVIED PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C). 3.2 THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL S)- 8 NEW DELHI HAS ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT THE AP PELLANT HAVING NEITHER CONCEALED' THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME NOR FU RNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME, THE LEVY OF PENAL TY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) READ WITH EXPLANATION 1 THERETO IS BAD IN LAW AND LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. 3.3 ON FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND LAW APPLICABLE, THE CONDITIONS FOR LEVYING PENALTY UNDE R SECTION 271(1)(C) BEING NOT SATISFIED, THE ORDER PASSED UND ER SECTION 271 (1)(C) IS BAD IN LAW AND LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. 4.1 THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL S) 18 NEW DELHI HAS ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT THE EN TIRE BASIS, RATIONALE FOR MAKING DISALLOWANCE AND THE CONSEQUEN TIAL LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) WAS BAD IN LAW AND LIABLE TO THE QUASHED. 5.1 THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL S) 18 NEW DELHI HAS ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT ITA NO.2789/DEL./2017 3 A) OF THE TOTAL DISALLOWANCE OF RS.41,18,325/-, A S UM OF RS.20,07,018/- WAS TOWARDS I) FEES FOR DRAFTING/VET TING OF VARIOUS COMMERCIAL AGREEMENTS BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND INDIAN PARTIES AND VENDORS SUCH AS WHOLESALE SUPPLY AGREEMENT (II) ASSETS PURCHASE AGREEMENT (III) SOFTWARE PURCHASE AGREEMENT (IV) PLATFORM LICENSE AGREEMENT (V) DEED OF ASSIGNMENT F OR TRADE MARK, DOMAIN AGREEMENT, IP LICENSE AGREEMENT (VI) DIRECTORS EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENTS (VII) ACCOUNTING CHARGES ETC. B) THE DISALLOWANCE OF BALANCE LEGAL FEE OF RS 21,1 1,3071- INCURRED TOWARDS DRAFTING SHAREHOLDERS AGREEMENT AN D FOREIGN DIRECT INVESTMENT IS NOT FREE FROM DOUBT AN D CAPABLE OF HAVING TWO VIEWS. 6.1 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE AND OTHER GROUNDS TO BE AD DUCED AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE O RDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) 18 NEW DELHI BE QUASHED AND THE PENALTY LEVIED UNDER SECTI ON 271(1)(C) BE CANCELLED OR DELETED. THE APPELLANT PRAYS ACCORD INGLY. 2. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS NECESSARY FOR ADJUDICAT ION OF THE CONTROVERSY AT HAND ARE : ON THE BASIS OF ASSESSMEN T FRAMED UNDER SECTION 143 (3) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DATED 20.03.2 015 MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS.41,18,325/- ON ACCOUNT OF EXPENSES C LAIMED BUT NOT FOUND ALLOWABLE, PENALTY PROCEEDINGS HAVE BEEN INIT IATED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. DECLINING THE CONTENTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE, A SSESSING OFFICER (AO) PROCEEDED TO LEVY THE PENALTY TO THE TUNE OF R S.12,72,563/- @ 100% OF THE TAX SOUGHT TO BE EVADED U/S 271(1)(C) O F THE ACT. 3. ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE LD. CIT ( A) BY WAY OF FILING APPEAL WHO HAS CONFIRMED THE PENALTY BY DISM ISSING THE ITA NO.2789/DEL./2017 4 APPEAL. FEELING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE HAS COME UP BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL BY WAY OF FILING THE PRESENT APPEAL. 4. ASSESSEE HAS NOT PREFERRED TO PUT IN APPEARANCE DESPITE ISSUANCE OF THE NOTICE AND CONSEQUENTLY, WE PROCEED ED TO DECIDE THE PRESENT APPEAL WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF THE LD. D R AS WELL AS ON THE BASIS OF DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE ON THE FILE. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIV E FOR THE REVENUE/APPELLANT TO THE APPEAL, GONE THROUGH THE D OCUMENTS RELIED UPON AND ORDERS PASSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHOR ITIES BELOW IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E. 6. LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE TO REPEL THE QUERIES PUT- FORTH TO HIM RELIED UPON VARIOUS DECISIONS VIZ. VIJAY AGGARWAL VS. DCIT 2019-TIOL-1628-ITAT-DEL, SUNDARAM FINANCE LTD. VS. CIT (2018) 99 TAXMANN.COM 152 (SC), SUNDARAM FINANCE LT D. VS. CIT (2018) 403 ITR 407 (MADRAS), CIT VS. SMT. KAUSH ALYA (1995) 216 ITR 660 (BOM.), NEW HOLLAND TRACTORS (IN DIA) (O) LTD. VS. CIT (2015) 275 CTR 291 (DELHI), TRIMUTI EN GINEERING WORKS VS. ITO (2012) 138 ITD 189 (DELHI), HYBRID RI CE INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD. VS. CIT IN ITA NO.285/DEL/2 007, EARTHMOVING EQUIPMENT SERVICE CORPORATION VS. DCIT (2017) 166 ITD 113 (MUMBAI), DCIT VS. SHAH RUKH KHAN (2018 ) 93 TAXMANN.COM 320 (MUMBAI-TRIB.) ETC. AND CONTENDED THAT WHEN ITA NO.2789/DEL./2017 5 IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER RELEVANT LIMB OF SECTION 27 1(1)(C) I.E. FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME HAS BEEN INVOKED, IT WAS SUFFICIENT TO ATTRACT THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. LD. DR ALSO FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS RUN NING INTO 12 PAGES WHICH HAVE BEEN MADE PART OF THE JUDICIAL REC ORD. 7. IN THE BACKDROP OF THE AFORESAID FACTS AND CIRCU MSTANCES OF THE CASE, ORDER PASSED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND ARGUMENTS ADDRESSED BY THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE, THE SOLE Q UESTION ARISES FOR DETERMINATION IN THIS CASE IS:- AS TO WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAS CONCEALED PARTICULA RS OF INCOME OR HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME D URING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS? 8. UNDISPUTEDLY, BY FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME, AS SESSEE HAS CLAIMED CERTAIN EXPENSES WHICH HAVE BEEN FOUND TO B E NOT ALLOWABLE AND CONSEQUENTLY, AO BY DISALLOWING THE S AME MADE ADDITION THEREOF. IT IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE THAT I T IS NOT THE CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT CERTAIN PARTICULARS NECESSARY FOR THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HAVE BEEN CONCEALED OR ASSESSEE HAS FUR NISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. 9. IN ORDER TO PROCEED FURTHER, WE WOULD LIKE TO PE RUSE THE NOTICE DATED 27.10.2020 ISSUED BY AO U/S 274 READ W ITH SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT TO INITIATE THE PENALTY PROCEE DINGS WHICH IS EXTRACTED AS UNDER FOR READY PERUSAL:- ITA NO.2789/DEL./2017 6 NOTICE UNDER SECTION 274 READ WITH SECTION 271 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. PAN AACCI7147R DATED: 20.03.2015 TO M/S. ISHITA TECHNOLOGIES LTD., WESTERN SIDE BASEMENT & GROUND FLOOR, 4378/4, GALI-4B, ANSARI ROAD, DARYA GANJ, NEW DELHI-02. WHEREAS IN THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE ME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 IT APPEARS TO ME THAT YOU:- HAVE WITHOUT REASONABLE CAUSE FAILED TO COMPLY WITH A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 142(1)/143(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 DATED HAVE CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF YOUR INCOME OR FU RNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME IN TERMS OF E XPLANATION 1, 2,3,4 AND 5. YOU ARE REQUESTED TO APPEAR BEFORE ME AT 11.30 AM/P M ON 24.94.2015 AND SHOW CAUSE WHY AN ORDER IMPOSING A P ENALTY ON YOU SHOULD NOT BE MADE UNDER SECTION 271 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. IF YOU DO NOT WISH TO AVAIL YOURSELF OF THIS OPPORT UNITY OF BEING HEARD IN PERSON OR THROUGH AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES YOU MAY SHOW CAUSE IN WRITING ON OR BEFORE THE SAID DATE WHICH WILL BE CONSIDERS BEFORE ANY SUCH ORDER IS MADE UNDER SECTION 271. SD/- ASSESSING OFFICER, PLACE : NEW DELHI (AMIT KUMAR JAIN) DATE : 20.03.2015 DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 12(20, NEW DELHI. 10. BARE PERUSAL OF THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 274 READ WITH SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, EXTRACTED ABOVE, IN ORDER TO INITIATE THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ASSESSEE GOES TO PROVE THAT THE AO HIMSELF WAS NOT AWARE / SURE AS TO WHETHER HE IS ISSUING NOTICE TO INITIATE THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS EITHER FOR CONCEALMENT OF PART ICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME BY THE ASSESSEE RATHER ISSUED VAGUE AND AMBIGUOUS N OTICE BY ITA NO.2789/DEL./2017 7 INCORPORATING BOTH THE LIMBS OF SECTION 271(1)(C). WHEN THE CHARGE IS TO BE FRAMED AGAINST ANY PERSON SO AS TO MOVE TH E PENAL PROVISIONS AGAINST HIM/HER, HE/SHE IS REQUIRED TO B E SPECIFICALLY MADE AWARE OF THE CHARGES TO BE LEVELED AGAINST HIM /HER. 11. BARE PERUSAL OF NOTICE ISSUED U/S 274 READ WITH SECTION 271(1)(C) SHOWS THAT THE AO HAS FAILED TO SPECIFY IN THE SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE (SUPRA) IF THE ASSESSEE HAS CONCEALED THE PARTICULA RS OF INCOME OR HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. IS SUANCE OF VALID NOTICE IN ORDER TO INITIATE THE PENAL PROVISIONS AS SINE QUA NON FOR LEVYING THE PENALTY AS THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED BY TH E HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SSAS E MERALD MEADOWS 73 TAXMANN.COM 241 (KAR.) AND HONBLE DEL HI HIGH COURT IN CASE OF PR. CIT VS. SAHARA INDIA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. IN ITA 475/2019 ORDER DATED 02.08.2019 . 12. HONBLE APEX COURT IN CASE OF CIT VS. SSAS EMERALD MEADOWS - (2016) 73 TAXMANN.COM 248 (SC) WHILE DISMISSING THE SLP FILED BY THE REVENUE QUASHING THE PENALTY B Y THE TRIBUNAL AS WELL AS HONBLE HIGH COURT ON GROUND OF UNSPECIF IED NOTICE HAS HELD AS UNDER:- SECTION 274, READ WITH SECTION 271(1)(C), OF THE I NCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 - PENALTY - PROCEDURE FOR IMPOSITION OF (CONDI TIONS PRECEDENT) - ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 - TRIBUNAL, RELYING ON DE CISION OF DIVISION BENCH OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT RENDERED IN CASE OF CIT V. MANJUNATHA COTTON & GINNING FACTORY [2013] 359 1TR 565/218 TAXMAN 423/35 TAXMANN.COM 250, ALLOWED APPEAL OF AS SESSEE ITA NO.2789/DEL./2017 8 HOLDING THAT NOTICE ISSUED BY ASSESSING OFFICER UND ER SECTION 274 READ WITH SECTION 271 (1 )(C) WAS BAD IN LAW, AS IT DID NOT SPECIFY UNDER WHICH LIMB OF SECTION 271 (1 )(C) PENALTY PRO CEEDINGS HAD BEEN INITIATED, I.E., WHETHER FOR CONCEALMENT OF PA RTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF I NCOME - HIGH COURT HELD THAT MATTER WAS COVERED BY AFORESAID DEC ISION OF DIVISION BENCH AND, THEREFORE, THERE WAS NO SUBSTANTIAL QUES TION OF LAW ARISING FOR DETERMINATION - WHETHER SINCE THERE WAS NO MERIT IN SLP FILED BY REVENUE, SAME WAS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED - HELD, YES [PARA 2] [IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE] 13. HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN CASE OF PR. CIT VS. SAHARA INDIA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. IN ITA 475/2019 O RDER DATED 02.08.2019 WHILE DECIDING THE IDENTICAL ISSUE HELD AS UNDER:- 21. THE RESPONDENT HAD CHALLENGED THE UPHOLDING O F THE PENALTY IMPOSED UNDER SECTION 271 (1) (C) OF THE AC T, WHICH WAS ACCEPTED BY THE ITAT. IT FOLLOWED THE DECISION OF T HE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN CIT V. MANJUNATHA COTTON & GINNING FA CTORY 359 ITR 565 (KAR) AND OBSERVED THAT THE NOTICE ISSUED B Y THE AO WOULD BE BAD IN LAW IF IT DID NOT SPECIFY WHICH LIMB OF S ECTION 271(1) (C) THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS HAD BEEN INITIATED UNDER I. E. WHETHER FOR CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FOR FURNISH ING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE KARNATAKA HIG H COURT HAD FOLLOWED THE ABOVE JUDGMENT IN THE SUBSEQUENT ORDER IN COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX V. SSA'S EMERALD MEADOWS (2016) 73 TAXMAN.COM 241 (KAR) , THE APPEAL AGAINST WHICH WAS DISMISSED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN SLP NO. 11485 OF2016 BY ORDER DATED 5TH AUGUST, 2016. 14. WE HAVE FURTHER GATHERED THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED ALL THE PARTICULARS IN THE RETURN OF INCO ME CLAIMING CERTAIN EXPENSES, HOWEVER FOUND TO BE NOT ALLOWABLE, IT WOU LD NOT AMOUNT TO FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME T O ATTRACT THE PENAL PROVISIONS U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, AS HAS BEEN HE LD BY HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF RELIANCE PETRO PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. - 322 ITR 158 (SC), OPERATIVE PART OF WHICH IS EXTRACTED FOR READY PERUSAL AS UNDER :- ITA NO.2789/DEL./2017 9 A GLANCE AT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 SUGGESTS THAT IN ORDER TO BE COVERED BY IT, THERE H AS TO BE CONCEALMENT OF THE PARTICULARS OF THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. SECONDLY, THE ASSESSEE MUST HAVE FURNISHED INACCURA TE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME. THE MEANING OF THE WORD PARTICULAR S USED IN SECTION 271(1)(C) WOULD EMBRACE THE DETAIL OF THE C LAIM MADE. WHERE NO INFORMATION GIVEN IN THE RETURN IS FOUND T O BE INCORRECT OR INACCURATE, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE HELD GUILTY OF F URNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS. IN ORDER TO EXPOSE THE ASS ESSEE TO PENALTY, UNLESS THE CASE IS STRICTLY COVERED BY THE PROVISIO N, THE PENALTY PROVISION CANNOT BE INVOKED. BY NO STRETCH OF IMAG INATION CAN MAKING AN INCORRECT CLAIM TANTAMOUNT TO FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS. THERE CAN BE NO DISPUTE THAT EVERYTHI NG WOULD DEPEND UPON THE RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, BECAUSE THAT IS THE ONLY DOCUMENT WHERE THE ASSESSEE CAN FURNISH THE PARTICU LARS OF HIS INCOME. WHEN SUCH PARTICULARS ARE FOUND TO BE INAC CURATE, THE LIABILITY WOULD ARISE. TO ATTRACT PENALTY, THE DET AILS SUPPLIED IN THE RETURN MUST NOT BE ACCURATE, NOT EXACT OR CORRECT, NOT ACCORDING TO THE TRUTH OR ERRONEOUS. WHERE THERE IS NO FINDING THAT ANY DETAILS SUPPLIE D BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS RETURN ARE FOUND TO BE INCORRECT OR ERRONEOUS OR FALSE THERE IS NO QUESTION OF INVITING THE PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C). A MERE MAKING OF A CLAIM, WHICH IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW, BY ITSELF, WILL NOT AMOUNT TO FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULAR S REGARDING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. SUCH A CLAIM MADE IN THE R ETURN CANNOT AMOUNT TO FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS. 15. IN VIEW OF WHAT HAS BEEN DISCUSSED IN THE PRECE DING PARAS, THE CONTENTION RAISED BY THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE BY RELYING UPON THE CASE LAWS CITED AS SUNDARAM FINANCE LTD. VS. CIT, CIT VS. SMT. KAUSHALYA, TRIMUTI ENGINEERING WORKS VS. I TO (SUPRA) AND OTHERS REFERRED TO IN PARA NO.6 OF THIS ORDER, ARE OF NO SUPPORT TO THE REVENUE IN VIEW OF THE LAW LAID DOWN BY HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN CASE OF PR. CIT VS. SAHARA INDIA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. (SUPRA) AND THE ISSUE DECIDED BY HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF CIT VS. SSAS EMERALD MEADOWS (SUPRA). ITA NO.2789/DEL./2017 10 16. SO, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT DECISION RENDERED BY HONBLE APEX COURT IN CIT VS. SSAS EMERALA MEADOWS (SUPRA) AND HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY (SUPRA) ARE SQUARELY APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS THE AO HAS M ISERABLY FAILED TO SPECIFY IN THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 274 R EAD WITH 271(L)(C) OF THE ACT, 'AS TO WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAS CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME OR HAS FURNISHED INACCURA TE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME , AND ALSO MERELY MAKING A CLAIM WHICH IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW BY ITSELF, AS IN THE PRESENT CAS E, ASSESSEES EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN DISALLOWED BY THE AO, WOULD NO T AMOUNT TO FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME . CONSEQUENTLY, PENALTY LEVIED BY THE AO AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD. C IT (A) IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW. RESULTANTLY, THE A PPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THIS 1 ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021 AFTER THE CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING THROUGH VIDEO CONFERE NCE. SD/- SD/- (N.K. BILLAIYA) (KULDIP SI NGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED THE 1 ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021. TS ITA NO.2789/DEL./2017 11 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1.APPELLANT 2.RESPONDENT 3.CIT 4.CIT(A)-18, GURGAON. 5.CIT(ITAT), NEW DELHI. AR, ITAT NEW DELHI.