SHRI PREM KUMAR SANGHI, Jaipur V. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, Jaipur

ITA 291/JPR/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9371 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-07-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 28-02-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K C MEENA CIT DHK
• Assessee Lawyers: S R SHARMA CAS
• Keywords: Question of law; Initiation of penalty proceedings; Set aside
• Section: 271(1)(c); 143(3); 147; 68

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES A, JAIPUR JH JES'K LH 'KEKZ] YS[KK LNL; ,OA JH FOT; IKY JKO] U;KF;D LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI RAMESH C SHARMA, AM & SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM VK;DJ VIHY LA -@ ITA NO. 291/JP/2018 FU/KZKJ.K O'KZ@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 SHRI PREM KUMAR SANGHI, THROUGH L/H SMT. SAROJ SANGHI, 137, M.I. ROAD, PANCH BATTI, JAIPUR. C UKE VS. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA -@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: AGWPS 9875 R VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS @ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI RAJNIKANT BHATRA & SHRI S.R. SHARMA (CAS) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS @ REVENUE BY : SHRI K.C. MEENA (ADDL.CIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 03/07/2019 MN?KKS 'K.KK DH RKJH[K @ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 05/07/2019 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: R.C. SHARMA, A.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A)-I, JAIPUR DATED 10/11/2017 FOR THE A.Y. 2010-11 IN THE MATTER OF IMPOSITION OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT, THE ACT). GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE READS AS UNDER: 1. THAT THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 274 R/W SEC. 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 IS WRONG AND BAD IN LAW INASMUCH AS IT DID NOT SPECIFY IN WHICH LIMB OF SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS HAS BEEN INITIATED, I.E. WHETHER FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. ITA 291/JP/2018_ PREM KUMAR SANGHI VS DCIT 2 2. THAT WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE GROUND NO. 1 ABOVE ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) IS WRONG, UNJUST AND HAS ERRED IN LAW IN CONFIRMING PENALTY TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 1,15,875/- IMPOSED BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. 3. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES THE PERMISSION TO ADD TO OR AMEND TO ANY OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OR TO WITHDRAW ANY OF THEM. 2. THERE IS DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL. IN SUPPORT OF THE DELAY, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED REASONS IN THE FORM OF AFFIDAVIT. AFTER GOING THROUGH THE REASONS, WE ARE SATISFIED THAT THERE WAS REASONABLE GROUND FOR DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL. ACCORDINGLY, IN THE SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST OF JUSTICE, THE DELAY IS CONDONED AND APPEAL IS BEING HEARD ON MERIT. 3. RIVAL CONTENTIONS HAVE BEEN HEARD AND RECORD PERUSED. THE FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT U/S 147 READ WITH SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT, AN ADDITION OF RS. 3,75,000/- WAS MADE IN RESPECT OF CASH PAID FOR COVERED CAR PARKING, CLUB HOUSE, GENERATOR ETC. THE ADDITION WAS MADE ON THE PLEA THAT SHRI BIMAL KUMAR JAIN HAS SURRENDERED THE SAID AMOUNT AND OFFERED THE SAME FOR TAX IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED U/S 132(4) OF THE ACT. THE A.O. TREATED THE SAID AMOUNT AS UNDISCLOSED RECEIPT BY THE ASSESSEE THOUGH THE ASSESSEE CATEGORICALLY DENIED THE RECEIPT OF SAID AMOUNT FROM SHRI BIMAL KUMAR JAIN. HOWEVER, NO OTHER MATERIAL WAS POINTED OUT BY THE A.O. EXCEPT ORAL TESTIMONY OF SHRI BIMAL KUMAR JAIN SURRENDERING THE INCOME. WITH RESPECT OF THIS ADDITION, THE ITA 291/JP/2018_ PREM KUMAR SANGHI VS DCIT 3 A.O. HAS LEVIED THE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT WHICH WAS CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND AGAINST WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE THE ITAT. 4. IT WAS ARGUED BY THE LD AR OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE A.O. DID NOT INITIATE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT SPECIFICALLY IN RESPECT OF ADDITION OF RS. 3.75 LACS IN ASSESSMENT ORDER WHILE SPECIFICALLY PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) WAS INITIATED FOR FILING INACCURATE PARTICULARS, THEREBY CONCEALING INCOME IN RESPECT OF DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION MADE U/S 80IB(10) OF THE ACT. OUR ATTENTION WAS INVITED AT THE LAST PARA OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREIN IT WAS STATED THAT PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE BEING INITIATED SEPARATELY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT FOR CONCEALING AND FILING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. OUR ATTENTION WAS INVITED TO THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) WHEREIN THE ADDITION MADE BY DISALLOWING CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(10) OF THE ACT WAS ALLOWED BY THE LD. CIT(A) WHICH HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE ITAT AS WELL AS THE HONBLE HIGH COURT BY DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT. THE LD AR HAS FURTHER ARGUED THAT THE PENALTY IS BAD IN LAW AS NOTICE ISSUED U/S 274 R.W.S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT IS IMPROPER AND INVALID, IN SO FAR AS IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE A.O. HELD IN LAST PARA OF THE ORDER THAT PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE BEING INITIATED SEPARATELY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, 1961, FOR CONCEALING & FILLING ITA 291/JP/2018_ PREM KUMAR SANGHI VS DCIT 4 INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. OUR ATTENTION WAS ALSO INVITED BY THE LD AR TO THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 274 READ WITH SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT DATED 28/02/2014 WHEREIN THE A.O. HAS RECORDED HAVE CONCEALED PARTICULARS OF YOUR INCOME OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME. 5. FURTHER IN THE PENALTY NOTICE U/S 274 READ WITH SECTION 271 OF THE ACT DATED 01.08.2014 THE A.O. MENTIONED THAT: - PENALTY PROCEEDINGS UNDER ABOVE MENTIONED SECTION OF THE IT ACT WERE INITIATED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN YOUR CASE FOR THE ABOVE-MENTIONED ASSESSMENT YEAR AND STATUTORY NOTICE HAS ALREADY BEEN ISSUED AND SERVED UPON YOU. NOW THESE PROCEEDINGS ARE TO BE FINALIZED AND FOR THAT PURPOSE YOU ARE AGAIN GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN YOUR CASE AND TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY PENALTY UNDER ABOVE MENTIONED SECTION OF THE INCOME TAX ACT MAY NOT BE LEVIED UPON YOU. ANOTHER PRINTED NOTICE DATED 22-03-2016 WAS ISSUED U/S 274 READ WITH SECTION 271 OF THE ACT MENTIONING THE SAME LINES OF EARLIER NOTICE I.E. PENALTY PROCEEDINGS UNDER ABOVE MENTIONED SECTION OF THE IT ACT WERE INITIATED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN YOUR CASE FOR THE ABOVE-MENTIONED ASSESSMENT YEAR AND STATUTORY NOTICE HAS ALREADY BEEN ISSUED AND SERVED UPON YOU. NOW THESE PROCEEDINGS ARE TO BE FINALIZED AND FOR THAT PURPOSE YOU ARE AGAIN GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN YOUR CASE AND TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY PENALTY UNDER ABOVE MENTIONED SECTION OF THE INCOME TAX ACT MAY NOT BE LEVIED UPON YOU. 6. IT WAS CONTENDED BY THE LD AR THAT ANY NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 274, READ WITH SECTION 271 (1) (C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, SHOULD ITA 291/JP/2018_ PREM KUMAR SANGHI VS DCIT 5 SPECIFY UNDER WHICH LIMB OF SECTION 271 (1)(C) OF THE ACT, THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS HAD BEEN INITIATED I.E. WHETHER FOR CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. IN THE ABSENCE OF WHICH NO PENALTY SHOULD BE LEVIED ON THE ASSESSEE AS DETERMINATION OF SUCH LIMB IS SINE QUA NON FOR IMPOSITION OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1) (C). 7. AS PER THE LD AR, IT IS APPARENT FROM ASSESSMENT ORDER AND/OR PENALTY NOTICE(S) THAT THE A.O. NEITHER IN ASSESSMENT ORDER NOR IN PENALTY NOTICE ISSUED BY HIM HAS CLEARLY MENTIONED THE LIMB, ON WHICH BASIS THE IMPUGNED PENALTY HAS BEEN IMPOSED. AS VERIFIABLE FROM THE RECORD THAT THE AO HAS SIMPLY ISSUED A PRE-PRINTED NOTICE WITHOUT STRIKING OFF THE UNNECESSARY PORTIONS OF THE NOTICE. IF THE A.O. WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CONCEALED THE INCOME OR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME THEN HE SHOULD HAVE DELETED OR NOT MENTIONED THE OTHER LIMB FOR IMPOSITION OF PENALTY I.E. CONCEALING THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE ABOVE ACT OF THE A.O. CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE ENTIRE EXERCISE OF INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS HAS BEEN DONE WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND. 8. AS PER THE LD AR, SINCE THERE IS VARIATION IN THE CHARGE LEVIED IN THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE VIS A VIS PENALTY ORDER, THE PENALTY SO LEVIED IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN ITA 291/JP/2018_ PREM KUMAR SANGHI VS DCIT 6 THE CASE OF CIT VS. M/S SSAS EMERALD MEADOWS 2015 (11) TMI 1620 WHEREIN AT PARA 3, THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS OBSERVED AS UNDER: PARA 3. IF 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 ACT, 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 ON THE DECISION OF THE DIVISION BENCH OF THIS COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY (2013) 359 ITR 565. IN OUR VIEW, SINCE THE MATTER IS COVERED BY JUDGEMENT OF THE DIVISION BENCH OF THIS COURT, WE ARE OF THE OPINION, NO SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW ARISED IN THIS APPEAL FOR DETERMINATION BY THIS COURT. THE APPEAL IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. THE SLP FILED BY THE I.T. DEPARTMENT AGAINST THE ABOVE ORDER, BEFORE THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HAS BEEN DISMISSED BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT. THEREFORE, HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HAS APPROVED THE FINDINGS MADE BY HON'BLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SSAS EMERALD MEADOWS (SUPRA) AND CIT VS MANJUNATHA COTTON & GINNIGN FACTORY & OTHERS [2013] 359 ITR 565. HON'BLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MANJUNATHA COTTON & GINNING FACTORY [2013] 359 ITR 565 (KARNATAKA) AFTER REFERRING TO THE DECISION OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF T. ASHOK PAI (SUPRA) HELD AS UNDER: - . CONCEALMENT, FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME ARE DIFFERENT. THUS THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE ISSUING NOTICE HAS TO COME ITA 291/JP/2018_ PREM KUMAR SANGHI VS DCIT 7 TO THE CONCLUSION THAT WHETHER IS IT A CASE OF CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR IS IT A CASE OF FURNISHING 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 INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME CARRY DIFFERENT CONNOTATIONS. THE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE 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 PENALTY 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 INVOKE THE FIRST LIMB BEING CONCEALMENT, THEN THE NOTICE HAS TO BE APPROPRIATELY MARKED. SIMILAR IS THE CASE FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE STANDARD PROFORMA WITHOUT STRIKING OF THE RELEVANT CLAUSES WILL LEAD TO AN INFERENCE AS TO NON APPLICATION OF MIND..? 9. RELIANCE WAS ALSO PLACED ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SHEVATA CONSTRUCTION CO. PVT. LTD. IN ITA NO. 534/2008 AND ALSO ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S JYOTI LTD. (2013) TAXMANN.COM 65 AND NEW SORATHIA ENGG. CO. (2006) 282 ITR 642 (GUJ). 10. AS PER THE LD. AR, RECENTLY AGAIN THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN CASE OF MUNINGA REDDY VS. ACIT (2017) 396 ITR 398 AND THE TELENGANA & ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN PCIT VS. BAISETTY REVETHI (2017) 398 ITR 88 HELD THE SAME VIEW. IN THE ABOVE SAID JUDGMENTS THE HONBLE COURTS DECIDED THE LAW POSITION ON ISSUE THAT THE CONCEALMENT OF INCOME AND FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME, TWO ARE DIFFERENT DEFAULTS AND ITA 291/JP/2018_ PREM KUMAR SANGHI VS DCIT 8 THEY CANNOT BE INTERMIXED. THEREFORE, THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A) HOLDING THAT IT CANNOT BE CONCLUDED THAT PENALTY NOTICE DID NOT SPECIFY THE LIMB FOR INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS I.E. FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME THAT ITSELF CANNOT BE REASON FOR INVALIDATING PENALTY PROCEEDINGS IS WRONG AND ORDER OF CIT (A) DESERVES TO BE SET ASIDE ON THIS ISSUE AND PENALTY LEVIED BY AO DESERVES TO BE CANCELLED. 11. RELIANCE WAS ALSO PLACED ON THE DECISION OF THE THIRD MEMBER OF THE ITAT AMRITSAR BENCH IN THE CASE OF HPCL MITTAL ENERGY LTD. VS ADDL.CIT IN SUPPORT OF THE PROPOSITION THAT IN CASE OF VARIATION IN THE CHARGE FOR LEVY OF PENALTY IN THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 274 AND THE ACTUAL CHARGE IN THE PENALTY ORDER PASSED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, THE PENALTY CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. WITH REGARD TO MERIT OF PENALTY SO IMPOSED WITH RESPECT TO ADDITION OF RS. 3,75,000/-, IT WAS ARGUED THAT ENTIRE INCOME FROM HOUSING PROJECT WAS EXEMPT U/S 80IB(10), THEREFORE, NO PENALTY IS IMPOSABLE FOR ENHANCEMENT OF SUCH QUANTUM OF PROFIT OF HOUSING PROJECT. 12. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD DR HAS CONTENDED THAT THE ADDITION WITH RESPECT TO RECEIPT OF ON MONEY OF RS. 3.75 LACS MADE U/S 68 OF THE ACT HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A), ON WHICH THE A.O. HAS CORRECTLY ITA 291/JP/2018_ PREM KUMAR SANGHI VS DCIT 9 LEVIED PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. HE HAS RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 13. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE HAD ALSO DELIBERATED ON THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS REFERRED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES IN THEIR RESPECTIVE ORDERS AS WELL AS CITED BY THE LD. AR AND LD. DR DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US IN THE CONTEXT OF FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE. FROM THE RECORD WE FOUND THAT IN THE QUANTUM ORDER, THE A.O. DID NOT INITIATE PENALTY IN RESPECT OF ADDITION OF RS. 3.75 LACS HOWEVER, PENALTY WAS INITIATED FOR DISALLOWANCE OF THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED U/S 80IB(10) OF THE ACT. THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. BY DISALLOWING THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED U/S 80IB(10) OF THE ACT, WAS ALLOWED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND FURTHER CONFIRMED BY THE ITAT AS WELL AS THE HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT BY DISMISSING THE APPEAL FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT. FROM THE RECORD WE FOUND THAT THE PENALTY ORDER WAS PASSED BY THE A.O. ON 31.03.2016, WHEREIN PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) IS IMPOSED ON ADDITION OF INCOME OF RS. 3,75,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED CASH AMOUNTING TO RS.3,75,000/- RECEIVED FROM ONE SH BIMAL KUMAR JAIN BY HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND CONCEALED HIS INCOME. THE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF A.O. IN LAST PARA OF THE PENALTY ORDER IS AS UNDER:- ITA 291/JP/2018_ PREM KUMAR SANGHI VS DCIT 10 IN VIEW OF THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND KEEPING IN VIEW THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271(1) (C) OF THE I T ACT, THE ASSESSEE IS FOUND GUILTY OF FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME TO THE EXTENT OF AMOUNT OF RS.3,75,000/- WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 271(1)(C) AND, THEREFORE PENALTY US/ 271(1)(C) IS IMPOSED ON THE CONCEALED INCOME. HOWEVER, THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS HAVE BEEN INITIATED FOR CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THEREAFTER THE PENALTY LEVIED BY HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND CONCEALED THE INCOME. AS THERE IS A VARIATION IN THE REASONS GIVEN FOR INITIATION OF PENALTY IS THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 274 VIS A VIS REASON GIVEN IN THE PENALTY ORDER PASSED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. FOR THE REASONS THAT NOW THERE IS A SETTLED LEGAL POSITION ON THE ISSUE THAT THE NOTICE U/S 274 SHOULD BE SPECIFIC ON IMPOSING OF PENALTY U/S 271(1) (C) OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 I.E. CONCEALED PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. RELIANCE IS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. M/S SSAS EMERALD MEADOWS (SUPRA). THE SLP FILED BY THE I.T. DEPARTMENT BEFORE THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HAS BEEN DISMISSED. THEREFORE, HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HAS APPROVED THE FINDINGS MADE BY HON'BLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SSAS ITA 291/JP/2018_ PREM KUMAR SANGHI VS DCIT 11 EMERALD MEADOWS AND CIT VS MANJUNATHA COTTON & GINNIGN FACTORY & OTHERS (SUPRA). 14. THE SAME VIEW HAS BEEN UPHELD BY THE HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SHEVETHA CONSTRUCTION CO. PVT. LTD. (SUPRA), ITAT JAIPUR BENCH IN THE CASE OF NARAYANA HEIGHTS & TOWERS VS ITO IN ITA NO. 1033/JP/2016 AND LAL CHAND MITTAL VS DCIT IN ITA NO. 772/JP/2016 ORDER DATED 29/12/2011. 15. THE ITAT, AMRITSAR BENCH (THIRD MEMBER) IN THE CASE OF HPCL MITTAL ENERGY LTD. VS ADD. CIT, CIRCLE-1, BHATINDA (SUPRA) HAS HELD THAT WHEN ASSESSING OFFICER IS SATISFIED AT STAGE OF INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS OF A CLEAR-CUT CHARGE AGAINST ASSESSEE OF CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME, BUT IMPOSES PENALTY BY HOLDING ASSESSEE AS GUILTY OF OTHER CHARGE (FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME) OR AN UNCERTAIN CHARGE (CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME/FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME), PENALTY CANNOT BE SUSTAINED 16. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE PENALTY SO IMPOSED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, THEREFORE, WE DIRECT THE A.O. TO DELETE THE SAME. 17. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ITA 291/JP/2018_ PREM KUMAR SANGHI VS DCIT 12 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 05 TH JULY, 2019. SD/- SD/- FOT; IKY JKO JES'K LH 'KEKZ (VIJAY PAL RAO) (RAMESH C SHARMA) U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER YS [KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 05 TH JULY, 2019 *RANJAN VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR @ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ @ THE APPELLANT- SHRI PREM KUMAR SANGHI, JAIPUR. 2. IZR;FKHZ @ THE RESPONDENT- THE D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR. 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR @ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDRVIHY @ THE CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ @ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. XKMZ QKBZY @ GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 291/JP/2018) VKNS'KKUQLKJ @ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ @ ASST. REGISTRAR