Sri Bhaskar Ghosh, Kolkata V. DCIT, CC-2(4), KOLKATA, Kolkata

ITA 285/KOL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4407 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-10-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 27-09-2016
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 23-03-2015
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Income from undisclosed sources; Search and seizure; Principle of natural justice; Initiation of penalty proceedings; Revised return
• Section: 142(1); 153A; 32; 27; 132

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NOS. 285, 286, 287 & 288/KOL./2015 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2007-2008 TO 2010-2011 PAGE 1 OF 11 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA A BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NOS. 285, 286, 287 & 288/KOL/ 2015 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2007-2008, 2008-2009, 2009-2010 & 2010-2011 SHRI BHASKAR GHOSH,.................. .....APPELLANT P-169, ARPAN, REGENT ESTATE, 2 ND FLOOR, KOLKATA-700 092 [PAN: AGJPG 5536 A] -VS.- DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,................. .............RESPONDENT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), KOLKATA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN POORVA, 110, SHANTI PALLY, BYE PASS, NEAR RUBY HOSPITAL, KOLKATA-700 107 APPEARANCES BY: SHRI S.M. SURANA, ADVOCATE, FOR THE ASSESSEE SHRI SALLONG YADEN, ADDL. CIT, D.R., FOR THE DEPARTMENT DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : SEPTEMBER 27, 201 6 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : OCTOBER 04, 2016 O R D E R PER BENCH .: THESE FOUR APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECT ED AGAINST FOUR SEPARATE ORDERS, ALL DATED 30.01.2015 PASSED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-20, KOLKATA, WHEREBY HE CONFIR MED THE PENALTIES OF RS.5,44,377/-, RS.7,28,402/-, RS.13,21,733/- AND RS .15,01,410/- IMPOSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) FO R ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 RESPECTIVELY. 2. THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS AN INDIVIDUA L, WHO DERIVES INCOME FROM BUSINESS AND OTHER SOURCES. THE RETURNS OF INCOME FOR ALL THE FOUR YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION REGULARLY FILED BY T HE ASSESSEE WERE ORIGINALLY PROCESSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 143(1). A SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION UNDER SECTION 132 WAS CON DUCTED AT THE I.T.A. NOS. 285, 286, 287 & 288/KOL./2015 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2007-2008 TO 2010-2011 PAGE 2 OF 11 RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE ON 12.07.2010. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, AN UNDISCLOSED BANK ACCOUNT MAINTAINED BY T HE ASSESSEE WITH IDBI BANK, GARIAHAT ROAD BRANCH, KOLKATA, WAS FOUND . IN HIS STATEMENT RECORDED UNDER SECTION 132(4), THE ASSESSEE AGREED THAT THE TRANSACTIONS REFLECTED IN THE SAID BANK ACCOUNT WERE NOT ACCOUNT ED FOR BY HIM. HE ALSO AGREED TO SURRENDER HIS UNDISCLOSED INCOME ON ACCOU NT OF SUCH TRANSACTIONS. IN THE RETURNS OF INCOME FILED ORIGIN ALLY IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICES ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTI ON 153A OF THE ACT FOR ALL THE FOUR YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSE E, HOWEVER, DID NOT OFFER OR DISCLOSE ANY AMOUNT OF SUCH INCOME SURREND ERED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH IN RESPECT OF THE TRANSACTIONS REF LECTED IN HIS UNDISCLOSED BANK ACCOUNT. AT THE FAG END OF THE PRO CEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 153A READ WITH SECTION 143(3), THE ASSESSEE FILED REVISED RETURNS FOR ALL THE FOUR YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION ON 21.03 .2013 DECLARING SUCH UNDISCLOSED INCOME. ALTHOUGH THE ASSESSMENTS UNDER SECTION 153A/143(3) FOR ALL THE FOUR YEARS UNDER CONSIDERAT ION WERE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE HIS ORDERS DATED 31.03.2013 ON THE SAME INCOME AS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS REVISED RETURNS, HE TREATED THE ADDITIONAL INCOME OFFERED BY THE ASESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF THE TRA NSACTIONS REFLECTED IN HIS UNDISCLOSED BANK ACCOUNT WITH IDBI, GARIAHAT RO AD BRANCH, KOLKATA AS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, AS THE CONCEALME NT ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE AND INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS UNDER SE CTION 271(1)(C). THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE IN REPLY TO THE NOTICES ISSUED BY HIM DURING THE COURSE OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS WAS NOT F OUND ACCEPTABLE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND HE PROCEEDED TO IMPOSE PE NALTIES OF RS.5,44,377/-, RS.7,28,402/-, RS.13,21,733/- AND RS .15,01,410/- FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-1 1 RESPECTIVELY BEING 100% OF THE TAX SOUGHT TO BE EVADED BY THE AS SESSEE IN RESPECT OF THE INCOME FROM THE TRANSACTIONS REFLECTED IN HIS U NDISCLOSED BANK ACCOUNT FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS GIVEN IN THE PENA LTY ORDERS.:- (I) THE CONCEALED BANK ACCOUNT NO.086104000105095 BELONGS TO IDBI BANK LTD, GARIAHAT ROAD BR., KOLKAT A MAINTAINED IN HIS NAME HAD BEEN INVENTED DURING SEA RCH & SEIZURE U/S.132 AND THE ASSESSE ADMITTED THE FACT W ITH I.T.A. NOS. 285, 286, 287 & 288/KOL./2015 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2007-2008 TO 2010-2011 PAGE 3 OF 11 CLARIFICATION THAT THE SAID BANK ACCOUNT HAS NEVER BEEN CONSIDERED TO DETERMINE HIS INCOME FOR ANY YEAR TIL L THE DATE OF SEARCH & SEIZURE. (II) THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAD ADMITTED THE FACT OF N OT DISCLOSING THE BANK ACCOUNT NO.086104000105095 DURI NG SEARCH & SEIZURE U/S.132(4) YET, HE HAD NOT SHOWN A N IOTA OF WILLINGNESS TO DISCLOSE THE SAID BANK ACCOUNT IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME FILED U/S.153A IN CONSEQUENCE OF S EARCH & SEIZURE FOR ANY OF THE ASSESSMENT YEARS. (III) THE NOTICES U/S.153A WERE SERVED UPON ASSESSE E ON 10.10.2011 ALLOWING THE ASSESSE THIRTY (30) DAYS' T IME TO FILE THE RETURNED INCOME WHERE THE ASSESSE COULD HA VE EXERCISED HIS OPTION OF WILLINGNESS TO OFFER AN ADD ITIONAL INCOME AS PER HIS COMMITMENT U/S.132(4) OF I.T. ACT , 1961 IN RESPECT OF UNDISCLOSED BANK ACCOUNT TRANSACTIONS FOR EACH RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEARS COVERED U/S.153A OF I.T. ACT, 1961. BUT THE ASSESSE WITHOUT SEEKING ANY EXTR A TIME TO FILE THE RETURN U/S. 153A, ULTIMATELY FILED AFTE R INORDINATE DELAY ON 06.03.2013 AND REVISED IT ON 21.03.2013. THUS THE RETURNED INCOME FILED U/S.L53A IS NOT IN TIME AS PERMITTED BY THE NOTICE U/S.153A OR BELA TED RETURN. (IV) THE CASE OF THE ASSESSE IS FULLY COVERED BY TH E CLAUSE (I) BELOW EXPLANATION 5A TO THE SECTION 271(1)(C) O F I.T. ACT, 1961 HENCE, THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF YEAR WI SE INCOME HAS BEEN DEDUCED FROM THE TRANSACTIONS OF UNDISCLOSED BANK ACCOUNT NO.086104000105095 OF IDBI BANK LTD, GARIAHAT, KOLKATA MAY BE DEEMED TO HAVE CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS [I.E. ACCOUNT NO.086104000105095 OF IDBI] OF HIS INCOME. 3. THE PENALTIES IMPOSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U NDER SECTION 271(1)(C) FOR ALL THE FOUR YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATIO N WERE CHALLENGED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE APPEALS FILED BEFORE THE LD. CI T(APPEALS) AND SINCE THE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD WAS NOT FOUND ACCEPTABLE BY HIM, THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) PROCEEDED TO CONFIRM T HE PENALTIES IMPOSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) FO R ALL THE FOUR YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS GIVEN IN PARAGRAPH NO. 5 OF HIS IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED FOR A.Y. 2007-08, WHICH A RE IDENTICAL FOR THE REMAINING THREE YEARS AS WELL :- I.T.A. NOS. 285, 286, 287 & 288/KOL./2015 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2007-2008 TO 2010-2011 PAGE 4 OF 11 5. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND PE RUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. I FIND THAT SEARCH U/S 132 WAS CONDUCTED ON 12-07-2010 AT THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISE OF THE ASSESSEE THEREBY RESULTING IN THE RECOVERY OF UNACCOUNTED CASH OF RS.35 LAKHS AND UND ISCLOSED BANK ACCOUNT HELD BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE IDBI BANK. THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED HIS ORIGINAL RETURN FOR THE RELEVANT YEAR ON 29-06- 2007 AT TOTAL INCOME OF RS.6,42,567/-. THE ASSESSEE WAS SERVED ON 10-10-2011 NOTICE U/S 153A THEREBY REQUIRING HIM TO FILE HIS R ETURN WITHIN 30 DAYS. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT SEEK EXTENSION OF TIME F OR FILING THE RETURN BUT STILL CHOSE TO FILE THE SAME ON 06-03-2012 AT T OTAL INCOME OF RS.5,B5,612/-. THE ASSESSEE HAD EARLIER MADE DISCLO SURE OF RS.15,71,724/- FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 7-08 ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED BANK ACCOUNT BEFORE THE DDIT(INV) BU T DID NOT INCLUDE THE SAME IN HIS RETURN FILED ON 06-03-2012 IN RESPO NSE TO THE NOTICE U/S 153A. THE ASSESSEE VIDE NOTICE U/S 142(1) ISSUE D ON 03-10-2012 BY THE AO WAS INQUIRED ABOUT HIS BANK ACCOUNT WITH THE IDBI BANK. THE ASSESSEE THEN ADMITTED BEFORE THE AO THAT THE B ANK ACCOUNT WITH THE IDBI BANK WAS NOT DISCLOSED IN HIS RETURNS AND OFFERED ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS.1,3B,35,413/- FOR THE FINAN CIAL YEARS 2006- 07 TO 2010-11. THE ASSESSEE FILED REVISED RETURN ON 21-03-2013 THEREBY INCLUDING THE UNACCOUNTED INCOME OF RS.15,7 1,724/ - EMBEDDED IN THE UNDISCLOSED BANK ACCOUNT RELATED TO THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. I THEREFORE FIND MERIT IN THE FINDING OF THE AO THAT THE SURRENDER OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF RS.1 5,71,724/- BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT VOLUNTARY. I AGREE WITH THE AO THA T IT WAS ONLY AFTER THE ASSESSEE WAS INQUIRED ABOUT THE NATURE OF HIS BANK ACCOUNT WITH THE IDBI BANK THAT HE EVENTUALLY SURRENDERED T HE UNDISCLOSED INCOME BY FILING THE REVISED RETURN. I ALSO FIND ME RIT IN THE FINDING OF THE AO THAT THE REVISED RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSE E WAS LEGALLY INVALID. THE MATERIAL ON RECORD SUGGESTED THAT THE NOTICE U/S 153A WAS SERVED ON 10-10-2011 THEREBY REQUIRING THE ASSE SSEE TO SUBMIT HIS RETURN WITHIN 30 DAYS. THE ASSESSEE IN RESPONSE NEITHER SOUGHT EXTENSION OF TIME FOR FILING THE RETURN NOR DID HE FILE THE RETURN WITHIN THE ENQUIRED PERIOD OF 30 DAYS. THE ASSESSEE INSTEAD FILED THE RETURN ON 06-03-2012. THE ASSESSEE SUBSEQUENTLY FIL ED REVISED RETURN ON 21-03-2013. I AM OF THE OPINION THAT THERE IS NO EXPLICIT PROVISION UNDER THE I T ACT FOR REVISING A RETURN FILED IN CO MPLIANCE TO THE NOTICE U/S 153A. BUT EVEN OTHERWISE, IF ONE ATTEMPT S TO DRAW A PARALLEL WITH THE PROVISIONS RELATED TO REGULAR RET URN, THEN THE RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 06-03-2012 WAS BEYO ND THE DUE DATE AS PRESCRIBED IN THE NOTICE U/S 153A AND CONSEQUENT LY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT LAWFULLY COMPETENT TO FILE THE REVISED RETU RN. I UPHOLD THE FINDING OF THE AO THAT THE REVISED RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 21- 03-2013 WAS NOT VALID IN LAW. THE ASSESSEE THEREFOR E CANNOT BE PERMITTED TO ARGUE THAT HE HAD DECLARED THE UNDISCL OSED INCOME OF RS.15,71,724/- IN HIS RETURN. THE LD AR HAS ARGUED BEFORE ME THAT THE ASSESSEE VOLUNTARILY ADMITTED THE UNDISCLOSED I NCOME AND SO THERE WAS NO LAWFUL CASE FOR LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 27 1(1)(C). I HOWEVER HAVING CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE DO NOT FIND MERIT OR SUBSTANCE IN THE ARGUMENTS OF THE LD AR. THE CONDUC T OF THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT SUGGEST OR INDICATE THAT THE UNDISCLOSED I NCOME WAS VOLUNTARILY SURRENDERED BY HIM. THE ASSESSEE ON THE CONTRARY CHOSE TO TAKE HIS CHANCES AND DEFERRED TILL THE LAST MOME NT THE DECLARATION I.T.A. NOS. 285, 286, 287 & 288/KOL./2015 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2007-2008 TO 2010-2011 PAGE 5 OF 11 OF THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME IN HIS RETURN. I FIND FRO M THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE SEARCH AT THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISE YI ELDED RECOVERY OF CASH OF RS.35 LAKHS BUT THE ASSESSEE INSTEAD OF ADM ITTING ITS OWNERSHIP INITIALLY TRIED TO SHIFT ONUS BY CLAIMING THAT THE MONEY BELONGED TO THE KPC MEDICAL COLLEGE & HOSPITAL. I F IND THAT NO DISCLOSURE OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME WAS MADE BY THE AS SESSEE AT THE TIME OF THE SEARCH. THE ASSESSEE ADMITTED BEFORE TH E DDIT (INV] UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF RS.175 LAKHS FOR THE ASSESSME NT YEARS 2007-08 TO 2011-12 BUT LATER DID NOT HONOUR HIS COMMITMENT WHILE FURNISHING HIS RETURNS FOR THOSE YEARS IN AS MUCH AS THE UNDIS CLOSED INCOME ADMITTED BEFORE THE DDIT (INV) WAS NOT INCLUDED IN SUCH RETURNS. HOWEVER, WHEN THE INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND IN T HE SEARCH WAS CONFRONTED BY THE AO AT THE ASSESSMENT STAGE, THE A SSESSEE TURNED AROUND AND OFFERED THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME FOR TAXAT ION. THE ASSESSEE STILL DEFERRED THE DECLARATION OF SUCH UNDISCLOSED INCOME IN HIS RETURN WHICH HE EVENTUALLY DID ON 21-03-2013 JUST B EFORE THE LIMITATION FOR ASSESSMENT WAS DUE TO EXPIRE ON 31-0 3-2013. THE SERIES OF EVENTS CLEARLY LEAD TO ONLY ONE POSSIBLE CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSEE CONSCIOUSLY AND DELIBERATELY MADE ALL ATTE MPTS TO CONCEAL THE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME WITH THE SOLE OBJECTI VE OF EVADING TAX. I NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE DID SO EVEN WHEN INCRIMINATI NG MATERIAL WAS RECOVERED IN THE SEARCH AND UNDISCLOSED INCOME EMBE DDED THEREIN HAD BEEN UNEARTHED BY THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT. I THEREFORE REJECT THE ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE SURRENDER OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME WAS VOLUNTARILY MADE BY HIM. I FIND ON THE C ONTRARY THAT THE SERIES OF EVENTS AND INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND I N THE SEARCH LEFT THE ASSESSEE WITH NO OPTION BUT TO EVENTUALLY DECLA RE THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME BY FURNISHING THE REVISED RETURN WHICH HE WA S ANYWAY NOT LAWFULLY ENTITLED TO FURNISH. I ALSO UPHOLD THE FIN DING OF THE AO THAT THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN EXPLANATION 5A TO SECTI ON 271(1)(C) WERE APPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT CASE FOR THE SEARCH U/S 1 32 WAS CONDUCTED AFTER THE 1ST JUNE, 2007 AND THE ASSESSEE WAS FOUND TO BE MAINTAINING A BANK ACCOUNT WHICH REPRESENTED INCOME OF RS.15,71,724/- FOR THE PREVIOUS YEAR 2006-07 WHICH HAD ENDED BEFORE THE DATE OF THE SEARCH AND SUCH INCOME HAD NOT BEEN DECLARED IN THE RETURN FOR THE PREVIOUS YEAR 2006-07 FURNISHED BEFO RE THE DATE OF THE SEARCH AND CONSEQUENTLY, NOTWITHSTANDING THAT SUCH INCOME WAS DECLARED BY HIM IN ANY RETURN FURNISHED AFTER THE D ATE OF THE SEARCH, THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PURPOSES OF LEVY OF PENALTY U/ S 271(1)(C) SHALL BE DEEMED TO HAVE CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME. TH E LD AR HAS ARGUED THAT EXPLANATION 5A WAS NOT APPLICABLE IN A CASE WHERE THE ASSESSMENT WAS MADE ON THE BASIS OF ESTIMATE. I HOW EVER FIND THAT THE ASSESSMENT IN THE PRESENT CASE INVOLVES NO ESTI MATION. THE SEARCH CONDUCTED AT THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISE OF THE ASSESSEE RESULTED IN RECOVERY OF UNACCOUNTED MONEY AND UNDISCLOSED BA NK ACCOUNT. THE UNACCOUNTED MONEY SO FOUND AND THE UNACCOUNTED INCOME REPRESENTED BY THE UNDISCLOSED BANK ACCOUNT WAS EVE NTUALLY SURRENDERED BY THE ASSESSEE AS HIS UNDISCLOSED INCO ME. THE UNACCOUNTED INCOME REPRESENTED BY THE UNDISCLOSED B ANK ACCOUNT WAS DETERMINED ON THE BASIS OF THE TRANSACTIONS MAD E THROUGH THE BANK ACCOUNT. THE BREAK-UP OF THE DISCLOSURE MADE B Y THE ASSESSEE AND THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME MADE BY THE AO IN THE IMPUGNED I.T.A. NOS. 285, 286, 287 & 288/KOL./2015 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2007-2008 TO 2010-2011 PAGE 6 OF 11 ORDER CLEARLY SUGGESTED THAT THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME WAS METICULOUSLY WORKED OUT ON THE BASIS OF THE MATERIA L FOUND IN THE SEARCH. I THEREFORE REJECT THE ARGUMENT THAT THE AS SESSMENT WAS MADE ON THE BASIS OF ESTIMATION. THE ASSESSMENT ON THE CONTRARY WAS MADE ON THE BASIS OF THE EVIDENCE RECOVERED IN THE SEARCH AND THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME WAS METICULOUSLY WORKED OUT FROM THE TRANSACTIONS RECORDED IN THE UNDISCLOSED BANK ACCOU NT OF THE ASSESSEE. BUT EVEN OTHERWISE, THE DEEMING PROVISION S AS CONTAINED IN EXPLANATION 5A TO SECTION 271(1)(C) ARE CLEARLY ATT RACTED IN THE PRESENT CASE. ALSO, I DO NOT FIND MERIT IN THE ARGU MENT THAT THE DUE DATE CONTAINED IN CLAUSE (B) OF EXPLANATION 5A COUL D POSSIBLY BE EXTENDED TO MEAN THE DUE DATE FOR FILING THE RETURN U/S 139(4). BUT EVEN OTHERWISE, IT IS THE CLAUSE (A) WHICH IS APPLI CABLE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. THE JUDICIAL DECISIONS CITED BY THE L D AR ARE NOT RELEVANT TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE. IN VIEW OF THE A BOVE, I UPHOLD THE FINDING OF THE AO THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CONCEALED T HE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME AND HAS ALSO FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTIC ULARS OF SUCH INCOME. THE IMPUGNED PENALTY ORDER IS UPHELD. THE G ROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) CON FIRMING THE PENALTIES IMPOSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR ALL THE FOUR Y EARS UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE HAS PREFERRED THESE APP EALS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 4. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US, THE LD. D.R. H AS MOVED AN APPLICATION SEEKING ADJOURNMENT. HOWEVER, KEEPING I N VIEW THAT THE PRELIMINARY ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGIN G THE VALIDITY OF THE INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS IS SQUARELY COVER ED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE VARIOUS DECISIONS OF THIS TRIBUNAL, THE REQUEST OF THE LD. D.R. FOR ADJOURNMENT IS NOT ACCEDED TO. THESE APPEA LS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ACCORDINGLY BEING DISPOSED OF EX-PARTE QUA THE RESPONDENT-REVENUE AFTER HEARING THE ARGUMENTS OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE AS SESSEE AND PERUSING THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. 5. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED A PR ELIMINARY ISSUE CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF THE PENALTY ORDERS PASS ED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR ALL THE FOUR YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION ON THE GROUND THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SPECIFIC MENTION IN THE SHOW-CAU SE NOTICES ISSUED I.T.A. NOS. 285, 286, 287 & 288/KOL./2015 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2007-2008 TO 2010-2011 PAGE 7 OF 11 UNDER SECTION 274 OF THE ACT FOR ALL THE FOUR YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS TO WHETHER THE ASSESSEE WA S GUILTY OF HAVING FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR OF HAVING CONCEALED PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME, THE INITIATION OF PENA LTY PROCEEDINGS ITSELF WAS BAD IN LAW AND THE PENALTY ORDERS PASSED IN PUR SUANCE THEREOF ARE LIABLE TO BE QUASHED BEING INVALID. HE HAS INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE SHOW-CAUSE NOTICES ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR ALL THE FOUR YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION UNDER SECTION 274 IN THE PRINTE D FORM TO POINT OUT THAT THE IRRELEVANT PORTION, VIZ. FURNISHED INACCU RATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR CONCEALED PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME W AS NOT STRUCK OFF BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN THIS REGARD, IT IS OBSERV ED THAT THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SUVAPRASANNA BHATTACHARYA VS.- ACIT (ITA NO. 1303/KOL/2010) CITED BY THE LD. COUNS EL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAD AN OCCASION TO CONSIDER A SIMILAR ISSUE IN THE IDENTICAL FACT SITUATION AND THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IMPOS ING PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) WAS HELD TO BE INVALID BY THE TRI BUNAL RELYING ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT & ANOTHER VS.- MANJUNATHA COTTON & GINNING FACTORY REPORTED IN 359 ITR 565 AFTER DISCUSSING THE PROPOSITION LAID DOWN THEREIN IN GRE AT DETAIL IN PARAGRAPH NO. 8 TO 8.2 OF ITS ORDER DATED 06.11.2015, WHICH R EAD AS UNDER:- 8. THE NEXT ARGUMENT THAT THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE U /S.274 OF THE ACT WHICH IS IN A PRINTED FORM DOES NOT STRIKE OUT AS TO WHETHER THE PENALTY IS SOUGHT TO BE LEVIED ON THE FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR C ONCEALING PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME. ON THIS ASPECT WE FIND THAT IN THE SHOW CAUSE NOTIC E U/S.274 OF THE ACT THE AO HAS NOT STRUCK OUT THE IRRELEVANT PART. IT IS THEREFORE NOT SPELT OUT AS TO WHETHER THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE SOUGHT TO BE LEVIED FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR CONCEALING PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME. 8.1 THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT & ANR. V. MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY, 359 ITR 565 (KARN), HAS HELD THAT NOTICE U/S. 274 OF THE ACT SHOULD SPECIFICALLY STATE AS TO WHETHER PENALTY IS BEING P ROPOSED TO BE IMPOSED FOR CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS FURTHER LAID DOWN THAT CERTAIN PRINTED FO RM WHERE ALL THE GROUNDS GIVEN IN SECTION 271 ARE GIVEN WOULD NOT SATISFY THE REQUIRE MENT OF LAW. THE COURT HAS ALSO HELD THAT INITIATING PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ON ONE LIMB AND FIND THE ASSESSEE GUILTY IN ANOTHER LIMB IS BAD IN LAW. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE AFORESAID DECISION WILL SQUARELY APPLY AND ALL THE ORDERS IMPOSING PENALTY HAVE TO B E HELD AS BAD IN LAW AND LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. I.T.A. NOS. 285, 286, 287 & 288/KOL./2015 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2007-2008 TO 2010-2011 PAGE 8 OF 11 8.2 THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT & ANR. V. MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY (SUPRA) HAS LAID DOWN THE FOLL OWING PRINCIPLES TO BE FOLLOWED IN THE MATTER OF IMPOSING PENALTY U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE ACT . NOTICE UNDER SECTION 274 59. AS THE PROVISION STANDS, THE PENALTY PROCEEDING S CAN BE INITIATED ON VARIOUS GROUND SET OUT THEREIN. IF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AUTHORITY CATEGORICALLY RECORDS A FINDING REGARDING THE EXISTENCE OF ANY SAID GROUNDS MENTIONED THEREIN AND THEN PENALTY PROCEEDINGS IS INITIATED, IN THE NOTICE TO BE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 274, THEY COULD CONVENIENTLY REFER TO THE SAID ORDER WHICH CO NTAINS THE SATISFACTION OF THE AUTHORITY WHICH HAS PASSED THE ORDER. HOWEVER, IF T HE EXISTENCE OF THE CONDITIONS COULD NOT BE DISCERNED FROM THE SAID ORDER AND IF IT IS A CASE OF RELYING ON DEEMING PROVISION CONTAINED IN EXPLANATION-1 OR IN EXPLANATION-1(B), THEN THOUGH PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE IN THE NATURE OF CIVIL LIABILITY, IN FACT, IT I S PENAL IN NATURE. IN EITHER EVENT, THE PERSON WHO IS ACCUSED OF THE CONDITIONS MENTIONED I N SECTION 271 SHOULD BE MADE KNOWN ABOUT THE GROUNDS ON WHICH THEY INTEND IMPOSI NG PENALTY ON HIM AS THE SECTION 274 MAKES IT CLEAR THAT ASSESSEE HAS A RIGH T TO CONTEST SUCH PROCEEDINGS AND SHOULD HAVE FULL OPPORTUNITY TO MEET THE CASE OF TH E DEPARTMENT AND SHOW THAT THE CONDITIONS STIPULATED IN SECTION 271(1)(C) DO NOT E XIST AS SUCH HE IS NOT LIABLE TO PAY PENALTY. THE PRACTICE OF THE DEPARTMENT SENDING A P RINTED FARM WHERE ALL THE GROUND MENTIONED IN SECTION 271 ARE MENTIONED WOULD NOT SA TISFY REQUIREMENT OF LAW WHEN THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE ASSESSEE NOT REBUTTING THE INITIAL PRESUMPTION IS SERIOUS IN NATURE AND HE HAD TO PAY PENALTY FROM 100% TO 300% OF THE TAX LIABILITY. AS THE SAID PROVISIONS HAVE TO BE HELD TO BE STRICTLY CONSTRUED , NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 274 SHOULD SATISFY THE GROUNDS WHICH HE HAS TO MEET SPE CIFICALLY. OTHERWISE, PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE IS OFFENDED IF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTIC E IS VAGUE. ON THE BASIS OF SUCH PROCEEDINGS, NO PENALTY COULD BE IMPOSED ON THE ASS ESSEE. 60. CLAUSE (C) DEALS WITH TWO SPECIFIC OFFENCES, TH AT IS TO SAY, CONCEALING PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCO ME. NO DOUBT, THE FACTS OF SOME CASES MAY ATTRACT BOTH THE OFFENCES AND IN SOME CAS ES THERE MAY BE OVERLAPPING OF THE TWO OFFENCES BUT IN SUCH CASES THE INITIATION OF TH E PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ALSO MUST BE FOR BOTH THE OFFENCES. BUT DRAWING UP PENALTY PROCE EDINGS FOR ONE OFFENCE AND FINDING THE ASSESSEE GUILTY OF ANOTHER OFFENCE OR FINDING H IM GUILTY FOR EITHER THE ONE OR THE OTHER CANNOT BE SUSTAINED IN LAW. IT IS NEEDLESS TO POINT OUT SATISFACTION OF THE EXISTENCE OF THE GROUNDS MENTIONED IN SECTION 271(1 )(C) WHEN IT IS A SINE QUA NON FOR INITIATION OR PROCEEDINGS, THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS SHOULD BE CONFINED ONLY TO THOSE GROUNDS AND THE SAID GROUNDS HAVE TO BE SPECIFICALL Y STATED SO THAT THE ASSESSEE WOULD HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO MEET THOSE GROUNDS. AFTER, HE PLACES HIS VERSION AND TRIES TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CLAIM, IF AT ALL, PENALTY IS TO BE IMPOSED, IT SHOULD BE IMPOSED ONLY ON THE GROUNDS ON WHICH HE IS CALLED UPON TO ANSWER. I T IS NOT OPEN TO THE AUTHORITY, AT THE TIME OF IMPOSING PENALTY TO IMPOSE PENALTY ON T HE GROUNDS OTHER THAN WHAT ASSESSEE WAS CALLED UPON TO MEET. OTHERWISE THOUGH THE INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS MAY BE VALID AND LEGAL, THE FINAL ORDER IMPOSING PENALTY WOULD OFFEND PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND CANNOT BE SUSTAIN ED. THUS ONCE THE PROCEEDINGS ARE INITIATED ON ONE GROUND, THE PENALTY SHOULD ALSO BE IMPOSED ON THE SAME GROUND. WHERE THE BASIS OF THE INITIATION OF PENALT Y PROCEEDINGS IS NOT IDENTICAL WITH THE GROUND ON WHICH THE PENALTY WAS IMPOSED, T HE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY IS NOT VALID. THE VALIDITY OF THE ORDER OF PENALTY MUS T BE DETERMINED WITH REFERENCE TO THE INFORMATION, FACTS AND MATERIALS IN THE HAND S OF THE AUTHORITY IMPOSING THE PENALTY AT THE TIME THE ORDER WAS PASSED AND FU RTHER DISCOVERY OF FACTS I.T.A. NOS. 285, 286, 287 & 288/KOL./2015 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2007-2008 TO 2010-2011 PAGE 9 OF 11 SUBSEQUENT TO THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY CANNOT VALI DATE THE ORDER OF PENALTY WHICH, WHEN PASSED, WAS NOT SUSTAINABLE. 61. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS EMPOWERED UNDER THE AC T TO INITIATE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ONCE HE IS SATISFIED IN THE COURSE OF ANY PROCEEDIN GS THAT THERE IS CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF T OTAL INCOME UNDER CLAUSE (C). CONCEALMENT, FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF I NCOME ARE DIFFERENT. THUS THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE ISSUING NOTICE HAS TO COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT WHETHER IS IT A CASE OF CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR IS IT A CASE OF FU RNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS. THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF ASHOK PAI REPORTED IN 292 ITR 11 AT PAGE 19 HAS HELD THAT CONCEALMENT OF INCOME AND FURNISHING INACCURAT E PARTICULARS OF INCOME CARRY DIFFERENT CONNOTATIONS. THE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN T HE CASE OF MANU ENGINEERING REPORTED IN 122 ITR 306 AND THE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF VIRGO MARKETING REPORTED IN 171 TAXMAN 156, HAS HELD THAT LEVY OF P ENALTY HAS TO BE CLEAR AS TO THE LIMB FOR WHICH IT IS LEVIED AND THE POSITION BEING UNCLEAR PENALTY IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. THEREFORE, WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER PROPOSES TO I NVOKE THE FIRST LIMB BEING CONCEALMENT, THEN THE NOTICE HAS TO BE APPROPRIATEL Y MARKED. SIMILAR IS THE CASE FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE ST ANDARD PRO FORMA WITHOUT STRIKING OF THE RELEVANT CLAUSES WILL LEAD TO AN INFERENCE A S TO NON-APPLICATION OF MIND. THE FINAL CONCLUSION OF THE HONBLE COURT WAS AS FO LLOWS:- 63. IN THE LIGHT OF WHAT IS STATED ABOVE, WHAT EME RGES IS AS UNDER: A) PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) IS A CIVIL LIAB ILITY. B) MENS REA IS NOT AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT FOR IMPOSI NG PENALTY FOR BREACH OF CIVIL OBLIGATIONS OR LIABILITIES. C) WILLFUL CONCEALMENT IS NOT AN ESSENTIAL INGREDI ENT FOR ATTRACTING CIVIL LIABILITY. D) EXISTENCE OF CONDITIONS STIPULATED IN SECTION 2 71(1)(C) IS A SINE QUA NON FOR INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 271 . E) THE EXISTENCE OF SUCH CONDITIONS SHOULD BE DISC ERNIBLE FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OR ORDER OF THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY OR REVISI ONAL AUTHORITY. F) EVEN IF THERE IS NO SPECIFIC FINDING REGARDING THE EXISTENCE OF THE CONDITIONS MENTIONED IN SECTION 271(1)(C), AT LEAST THE FACTS SET OUT IN EXPLANATION 1(A) & (B) IT SHOULD BE DISCERNIBLE FROM THE SAID ORDER WHICH WOU LD BY A LEGAL FICTION CONSTITUTE CONCEALMENT BECAUSE OF DEEMING PROVISION. G) EVEN IF THESE CONDITIONS DO NOT EXIST IN THE AS SESSMENT ORDER PASSED, AT LEAST, A DIRECTION TO INITIATE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 271 (L)(C) IS A SINE QUA NON FOR THE ASSESSMENT OFFICER TO INITIATE THE PROCEEDINGS BECA USE OF THE DEEMING PROVISION CONTAINED IN SECTION 1(B). H) THE SAID DEEMING PROVISIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF APPEALS AND THE COMMISSIONER. I) THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY IS NOT AUTOMATIC. J) IMPOSITION OF PENALTY EVEN IF THE TAX LIABILITY IS ADMITTED IS NOT AUTOMATIC. K) EVEN IF THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CHALLENGED THE ORD ER OF ASSESSMENT LEVYING TAX AND INTEREST AND HAS PAID TAX AND INTEREST THAT BY ITSE LF WOULD NOT BE SUFFICIENT FOR THE AUTHORITIES EITHER TO INITIATE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS OR IMPOSE PENALTY, UNLESS IT IS DISCERNIBLE FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT, IT IS O N ACCOUNT OF SUCH UNEARTHING OR ENQUIRY CONCLUDED BY AUTHORITIES IT HAS RESULTED IN PAYMENT OF SUCH TAX OR SUCH TAX I.T.A. NOS. 285, 286, 287 & 288/KOL./2015 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2007-2008 TO 2010-2011 PAGE 10 OF 11 LIABILITY CAME TO BE ADMITTED AND IF NOT IT WOULD H AVE ESCAPED FROM TAX NET AND AS OPINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT O RDER. L) ONLY WHEN NO EXPLANATION IS OFFERED OR THE EXPL ANATION OFFERED IS FOUND TO BE FALSE OR WHEN THE ASSESSEE FAILS TO PROVE THAT THE EXPLANATION OFFERED IS NOT BONA FIDE, AN ORDER IMPOSING PENALTY COULD BE PASSED. M) IF THE EXPLANATION OFFERED, EVEN THOUGH NOT SUB STANTIATED BY THE ASSESSEE, BUT IS FOUND TO BE BONA FIDE AND ALL FACTS RELATING TO THE SAME AND MATERIAL TO THE COMPUTATION OF HIS TOTAL INCOME HAVE BEEN DISCLOSED BY HIM, NO PENALTY COULD BE IMPOSED. N) THE DIRECTION REFERRED TO IN EXPLANATION IB TO SECTION 271 OF THE ACT SHOULD BE CLEAR AND WITHOUT ANY AMBIGUITY. O) IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT RECORDED ANY S ATISFACTION OR HAS NOT ISSUED ANY DIRECTION TO INITIATE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS, IN APPEA L, IF THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY RECORDS SATISFACTION, THEN THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS HAVE TO BE INITIATED BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY AND NOT THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY. P) NOTICE UNDER SECTION 274 OF THE ACT SHOULD SPEC IFICALLY STATE THE GROUNDS MENTIONED IN SECTION 271(1)(C), I.E., WHETHER IT IS FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FOR FURNISHING OF INCORRECT PARTICULARS OF INCOME Q) SENDING PRINTED FORM WHERE ALL THE GROUND MENTI ONED IN SECTION 271 ARE MENTIONED WOULD NOT SATISFY REQUIREMENT OF LAW. R) THE ASSESSEE SHOULD KNOW THE GROUNDS WHICH HE H AS TO MEET SPECIFICALLY. OTHERWISE, PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE IS OFFENDE D. ON THE BASIS OF SUCH PROCEEDINGS, NO PENALTY COULD BE IMPOSED TO THE ASSESSEE. S) TAKING UP OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ON ONE LIMB AN D FINDING THE ASSESSEE GUILTY OF ANOTHER LIMB IS BAD IN LAW. T) THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE DISTINCT FROM THE A SSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE PROCEEDINGS FOR IMPOSITION OF PENALTY THOUGH EMANAT E FROM PROCEEDINGS OF ASSESSMENT, IT IS INDEPENDENT AND SEPARATE ASPECT O F THE PROCEEDINGS. U) THE FINDINGS RECORDED IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEED INGS IN SO FAR AS 'CONCEALMENT OF INCOME' AND 'FURNISHING OF INCORRECT PARTICULARS ' WOULD NOT OPERATE AS RES JUDICATA IN THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. IT IS OPEN TO THE ASSES SEE TO CONTEST THE SAID PROCEEDINGS ON MERITS. HOWEVER, THE VALIDITY OF THE ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT IN PURSUANCE OF WHICH PENALTY IS LEVIED, CANNOT BE THE SUBJECT MATTER OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. THE ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT CANNOT BE DECLARED A S INVALID IN THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. (EMPHASIS SUPPLIED) IT IS CLEAR FROM THE AFORESAID DECISION THAT ON THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE THAT THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE U/S. 274 OF THE ACT IS DEFECTIVE AS IT DOES NOT SPELL OUT THE GROUNDS ON WHICH THE PENALTY IS SOUGHT TO BE IMPOSED. FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT, WE HOLD THAT THE ORDERS IMPOSING PENALTY IN ALL THE ASSESSMENT YEARS HAVE TO BE HELD AS INVALID AND CONSEQUENTLY PENALTY IMPOSED IS CANC ELLED. FOR THE REASONS GIVEN ABOVE, WE HOLD THAT LEVY OF P ENALTY IN THE PRESENT CASE CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. WE THEREFORE CANCEL THE ORDERS IMPOSING PENALTY ON THE ASSESSEE AND ALLOW THE APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE. I.T.A. NOS. 285, 286, 287 & 288/KOL./2015 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2007-2008 TO 2010-2011 PAGE 11 OF 11 6. IN OUR OPINION, THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE B ENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL RENDERED IN THE CASE OF SUVAPRASANNA BHATT ACHARYA VS.- ACIT RENDERED VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 06.11.2015 IN ITA NO. 1303/KOL/2010 BY RELYING ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HI GH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT & ANOTHER VS.- MANJUNATHA COTTON & GINNING FAC TORY REPORTED IN 359 ITR 565 IS SQUARELY APPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT CASE AND RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME, WE HOLD THAT THE SHOW-CAUSE NOT ICES ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 274 FOR THE YEARS U NDER CONSIDERATION NOT BEING IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, THE PENALTY ORDERS PA SSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN PURSUANCE THEREOF ARE LIABLE TO BE CANCE LLED BEING INVALID. WE ACCORDINGLY CANCEL THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER IMPOSING PENALTIES UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) FOR THE YEARS UND ER CONSIDERATION AND ALLOW THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE. 7. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE A RE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON OCTOBER 04, 2 016. SD/- SD/- (K. NARASIMHA CHARY) (P.M. JAGTAP) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT ME MBER KOLKATA, THE 4 TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2016 COPIES TO : (1) SHRI BHASKAR GHOSH, P-169, ARPAN, REGENT ESTATE, 2 ND FLOOR, KOLKATA-700 092 (2) DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), KOLKATA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN POORVA, 110, SHANTI PALLY, BYE PASS, NEAR RUBY HOSPITAL, KOLKATA-700 107 (3) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-20, KOLKA TA; (4) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- , (5) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA LAHA/SR. P.S.