ABDUL HAMID MUSTAFA HUSSAIN SHAIKH, MUMBAI V. ITO ,WD-22(1)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 3008/MUM/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6687 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 2 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-06-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 25-04-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA , AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM / I .T.A. NO. 3008 / MUM/ 20 1 6 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009 - 10 ) SHRI ABDUL HAMID ABDUL MUSTAFA HUSSAIN SHAIKH SHOP NO.5, PLOT N O.313, 15PT, NEAR GEESEE APT, VIDYANAGARI, CST ROAD, KALINA, SANTACRUZ (E), MUMBAI - 400098. / VS. ITO, WARD 22(1)(1), AAYAKAR BHAWAN, MUMBAI. ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AMDPS 5078 F ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / DATE OF HEARING : 25 .0 5 .201 8 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29. 06 .2018 / O R D E R PER AM ARJIT SINGH, J M: THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 02 . 12 .201 5 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 34 , MUMBAI [HEREINAFTE R REFERRED TO AS THE CIT(A)] RELEVANT TO THE A.Y. 2009 - 10 WHERE IN THE PENALTY TO THE T UNE OF RS.7,50,000/ - HAS BEEN ORDER TO BE CONFIRMED. 2 . THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: - AS SESSEE BY : SHRI PRAKASH G. JHUNJHUNWALA REVENUE BY: SHRI RAM TIWARI ( SR. AR ) ITA. NO.3008 /M/201 6 A.Y. 20 09 - 10 2 1 A HUMBLE PRAYER IS MADE TO CONDONE THE DELAY OF 35 DAYS IN FILING OF APPEAL BEING CAUSED UNDER BONAFIDE REASONS AND COMPELLING CIRCUMSTANCES BEYOND THE CONTROL OF APPELLANT. 2. ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE PENALTY LEVIED OF RS.7,50,000/ - U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 3. THE APPELLANTS CRAVE L EAVE TO ALTER, AMEND AND OR ADD ANY OTHER GROUND OF APPEAL. 3 . THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSMENT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS COMPLETED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT ON 28.11.2011 BY DETERMINING TOTAL INCOME TO THE TUNE OF RS. 27,17,100/ - AS AGAINST THE RETURNED INCOME TO THE TUNE OF RS.5,30,973 / - . THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY ON THE BASIS OF THIS FACT THE ASSESSEE MADE THE INVESTMENT IN IMMOVABLE PROPERTY TO THE TUNE OF RS.1,23,46,000/ - . ON NOTICE , THE ASSESSEE FURNISH ED THE PURCHASE AGREEMENT D ATED 30.04.20 08 IN WHICH IT CAME INTO NOTICE THAT THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH FIVE SHARE - HOLDERS PURCHASE D T HE SAID PROPERTY IN A SUM OF RS.68,00,000/ - . THE 1/6 TH SHARE OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE TUNE OF RS.11,33,333/ - W AS ALSO DISCLOSED . T HE ASSESSEE RECEIVED AN AMOUNT OF RS.12,00,000/ - FROM NRI . THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO ESTABLISH THE IDENTITY , CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE CLAIM, THEREFORE, THE SAID AMOUNT WAS TREATED AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND BROUGHT TO TAX. THE ASSESSEE VIDE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 2 8.11.2011 INITIATED THE PENALTY ON ACCOUNT OF FURNISHING THE INACCURATE PARTICULARS. THEREAFTER, THE PENALTY NOTICE WAS GIVEN AND AFTER REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE , THE PENALTY TO THE TUNE OF RS.7,50,000/ - WAS LEVIED . A GGRIEVED BY THIS ORDER , THE ASSESSEE FILED ITA. NO.3008 /M/201 6 A.Y. 20 09 - 10 3 AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) WHO ALSO CONFIRM ED THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER , THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENT ADVANCED BY THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECO RD. THE ASSESSEE FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL 31 DAYS DELAY ED. T HE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT HE WAS ENGAGED IN THE MARRIAGE OF HIS NEPHEW MR. FAROOQUE SHAIKH WHICH WAS SCHEDULED TO BE HELD ON 29.04.2017, THEREFORE, THE FAMILY MEMBER OF THE ASSESSEE WERE BUSY I N CELEBRATION AND THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO TO VISIT AJMER SARIF, RAJASTHAN. THEREFORE THE MATTER BECAME DELAYED . T HE ASSESSEE WAS NOT HAVING THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT IS ALSO ONE OF THE CAUSE FOR FILING THE APPEAL DELAY ED . THE APPLICATION IS SUPPORTED BY AFFID AVIT, THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE CASE IS LIABLE TO BE HEARD ON MERITS, HENCE , WE CONDONE D THE DELAY. THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE HAS ARGUED THAT THE PENALTY NOTICE NOWHERE SPEAKS ABOUT THE SPECIFIC LIMB TO LEVY THE PENALTY BECAUSE TH E PARTICULAR CHARGE WAS NOT TICK OFF IN THE NOTICE, THEREFORE, IN THE SAID CIRCUMSTANCES THE PENALTY IS NOT LEVIABLE. IT IS ALSO ARGUED THAT IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER INITIATED THE PENALTY FOR FURNISHING THE INACCURATE PARTICULARS BUT THE ASSESSING OFFICER LEVIED THE PENALTY FOR THE CONCEALMENT OF INCOME IN THE PENALTY ORDER, THEREFORE, THE PENALTY IS NOT LIABLE TO BE SUSTAINABLE IN THE EY E S OF LAW. IN SUPPORT OF THESE CONTENTIONS THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE ITA. NO.3008 /M/201 6 A.Y. 20 09 - 10 4 HAS PLACED RELIAN CE UPON THE LAW SETTLED IN ITA. NO.1154/M/2014 IN THE CASE OF CIT - 11 VS. SAMSON PERINCHERY AND THE ORDER OF THE ITAT, MUMBAI BENCH . IT ALSO CAME INTO NOTICE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN HIS ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 28.11.2011 INITIATED THE PENALTY ON ACCOU NT OF FURNISHING THE INACCURATE PARTICULARS WHEREAS THE PENALTY HAS BEEN LEVIED ON ACCOUNT OF CONCEALMENT OF INCOME BY VIRTUE OF ORDER DATED 19.04.2012 WHICH IS NOT JUST IFIABLE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW . IN SUPPORT OF THIS CONTENTION THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED RELIANCE UPON THE LAW SETTLED IN ITA NO. 2555/M/2012 TITLED AS MEHERJEE CASSINATH HOLDINGS P. LTD. VS. ACIT, CIRCLE - 4(2). THE RELEVANT PARA IS HEREBY REPRODUCED BELOW: - 8. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. SEC. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT EMPOWERS THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO IMPOSE PENALTY TO THE EXTENT SPECIFIED IF, IN THE COURSE OF ANY PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE ACT, HE IS SATISFIED THAT ANY PERSON HAS CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULA RS OF SUCH INCOME. IN OTHER WORDS, WHAT SEC. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT POSTULATES IS THAT THE PENALTY CAN BE LEVIED ON THE EXISTENCE OF ANY OF THE TWO SITUATIONS, NAMELY, FOR CONCEALING THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCO ME. THEREFORE, IT IS OBVIOUS FROM THE PHRASEOLOGY OF SEC. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT THAT THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY IS INVITED ONLY WHEN THE CONDITIONS PRESCRIBED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT EXIST. IT IS ALSO A WELL ACCEPTED PROPOSITION THAT CONCEALMENT OF THE P ARTICULARS OF INCOME AND FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME REFERRED TO IN SEC. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT DENOTE DIFFERENT CONNOTATIONS. IN FACT, THIS DISTINCTION HAS BEEN APPRECIATED EVEN AT THE LEVEL OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT NOT ONLY IN THE CA SE OF DILIP N. SHROFF (SUPRA) BUT ALSO IN THE CASE OF T.ASHOK PAI, 292 ITR 11 (SC). THEREFORE, IF THE TWO EXPRESSIONS, NAMELY CONCEALMENT OF THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME HAVE DIFFERENT CONNOTATIONS, IT I S IMPERATIVE ITA. NO.3008 /M/201 6 A.Y. 20 09 - 10 5 FOR THE ASSESSEE TO BE MADE AWARE AS TO WHICH OF THE TWO IS BEING PUT AGAINST HIM FOR THE PURPOSE OF LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, SO THAT THE ASSESSEE CAN DEFEND ACCORDINGLY. IT IS IN THIS BACKGROUND THAT ONE HAS TO APPRECIATE TH E PRELIMINARY PLEA OF ASSESSEE, WHICH IS BASED ON THE MANNER IN WHICH THE NOTICE U/S 274 R.W.S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT DATED 10.12.2010 HAS BEEN ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE - COMPANY. A COPY OF THE SAID NOTICE HAS BEEN PLACED ON RECORD AND THE LEARNED REPRESENTATI VE CANVASSED THAT THE SAME HAS BEEN ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN A STANDARD PROFORMA, WITHOUT STRIKING OUT THE IRRELEVANT CLAUSE. IN OTHER WORDS, THE NOTICE REFERS TO BOTH THE LIMBS OF SEC. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, NAMELY CONCEALMENT OF THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AS WELL AS FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. QUITE CLEARLY, NON - STRIKING - OFF OF THE IRRELEVANT LIMB IN THE SAID NOTICE DOES NOT CONVEY TO THE ASSESSEE AS TO WHICH OF THE TWO CHARGES IT HAS TO RESPOND. THE AFORESAID INFIRMITY IN T HE NOTICE HAS BEEN SOUGHT TO BE DEMONSTRATED AS A REFLECTION OF NON - APPLICATION OF MIND BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AND IN SUPPORT, REFERENCE HAS BEEN MADE TO THE FOLLOWING SPECIFIC DISCUSSION IN THE ORDER OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF DILIP N. SHR OFF (SUPRA): - 83. IT IS OF SOME SIGNIFICANCE THAT IN THE STANDARD PROFORMA USED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN ISSUING A NOTICE DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE SAME POSTULATES THAT INAPPROPRIATE WORDS AND PARAGRAPHS WERE TO BE DELETED, BUT THE SAME HAD NOT BEEN D ONE. THUS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HIMSELF WAS NOT SURE AS TO WHETHER HE HAD PROCEEDED ON THE BASIS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CONCEALED HIS INCOME OR HE HAD FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS. EVEN BEFORE US, THE LEARNED ADDITIONAL SOLICITOR GENERAL WHILE PLACIN G THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT LAID EMPHASIS THAT HE HAD DEALT WITH BOTH THE SITUATIONS. 84. THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THEREFORE, SUFFERS FROM NON - APPLICATION OF MIND. IT WAS ALSO BOUND TO COMPLY WITH THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. (SEE MALABAR INDUSTRIAL CO. L TD. V. CIT [2000] 2 SCC 718] 9. FACTUALLY SPEAKING, THE AFORESAID PLEA OF ASSESSEE IS BORNE OUT OF RECORD AND HAVING REGARD TO THE PARITY OF REASONING LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF DILIP N. SHROFF (SUPRA), THE NOTICE IN THE INSTAN T CASE DOES SUFFER FROM THE VICE OF ITA. NO.3008 /M/201 6 A.Y. 20 09 - 10 6 NON - APPLICATION OF MIND BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN FACT, A SIMILAR PROPOSITION WAS ALSO ENUNCIATED BY THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S. SSAS EMERALD MEADOWS (SUPRA) AND AGAINST SUCH A JUDGMENT, THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION FILED BY THE REVENUE HAS SINCE BEEN DISMISSED BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT VIDE ORDER DATED 5.8.2016, A COPY OF WHICH IS ALSO PLACED ON RECORD. 10. IN FACT, AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LD. CIT - DR HAS NOT DISPUTED THE FACTUAL MATRIX , BUT SOUGHT TO POINT OUT THAT THERE IS DUE APPLICATION OF MIND BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH CAN BE DEMONSTRATED FROM THE DISCUSSION IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, WHEREIN AFTER DISCUSSING THE REASONS FOR THE DISALLOWANCE, HE HAS RECORDED A SATISFACTION THAT P ENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE INITIATED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT FOR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE ATTEMPT OF THE LD. CIT - DR TO DEMONSTRATE APPLICATION OF MIND BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NO DEFENCE INASMUCH AS TH E HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HAS APPROVED THE FACTUM OF NON - STRIKING OFF OF THE IRRELEVANT CLAUSE IN THE NOTICE AS REFLECTIVE OF NON - APPLICATION OF MIND BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. SINCE THE FACTUAL MATRIX IN THE PRESENT CASE CONFORMS TO THE PROPOSITION LAID DOW N BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT, WE PROCEED TO REJECT THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE LD. CIT - DR BASED ON THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. FURTHER, IT IS ALSO NOTICEABLE THAT SUCH PROPOSITION HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE HON'B LE BOMBAY HIGH COURT ALSO IN THE CASE OF SHRI SAMSON PERINCHERY, ITA NOS. 1154, 953, 1097 & 1126 OF 2014 DATED 5.1.2017 (SUPRA) AND THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL HOLDING LEVY OF PENALTY IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES BEING BAD, HAS BEEN APPROVED. 11. APART FROM THE AFORESAID, THE LD. CIT - DR MADE AN ARGUMENT BASED ON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SMT. KAUSHALYA & OTHERS, 216 ITR 660 (BOM.) TO CANVASS SUPPORT FOR HIS PLEA THAT NON - STRIKING OFF OF THE IRRELEVANT PORTION OF NOTICE WOULD NO T INVALIDATE THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SAID ARGUMENT SET - UP BY THE LD. CIT - DR AND FIND THAT A SIMILAR ISSUE HAD COME UP BEFORE OUR COORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF DR. SARITA MILIND DAVARE (SUPRA). OUR COORDINATE BENCH, AFTER CONSIDERING THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ITA. NO.3008 /M/201 6 A.Y. 20 09 - 10 7 SMT. KAUSHALYA & ORS., (SUPRA) AS ALSO THE JUDGMENTS OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF DILIP N. SHROFF (SUPRA) AND DHARMENDRA TEXTILE PROCESSOR S, 306 ITR 277 (SC) DEDUCED AS UNDER : - 12. A COMBINED READING OF THE DECISION RENDERED BY HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SMT. B KAUSHALYA AND OTHERS (SUPRA) AND THE DECISION RENDERED BY HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF DILIP N SHROFF (SUPR A) WOULD MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THERE SHOULD BE APPLICATION OF MIND ON THE PART OF THE AO AT THE TIME OF ISSUING NOTICE. IN THE CASE OF LAKHDIR LALJI (SUPRA), THE AO ISSUED NOTICE U/S 274 FOR CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME BUT LEVIED PENALTY FOR FURNISH ING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT QUASHED THE PENALTY SINCE THE BASIS FOR THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS DISAPPEARED WHEN IT WAS HELD THAT THERE WAS NO SUPPRESSION OF INCOME. THE HONBLE KERALA HIGH COURT HAS STRUCK DOWN THE PE NALTY IMPOSED IN THE CASE OF N.N.SUBRAMANIA IYER VS. UNION OF INDIA (SUPRA), WHEN THERE IS NO INDICATION IN THE NOTICE FOR WHAT CONTRAVENTION THE PETITIONER WAS CALLED UPON TO SHOW CAUSE WHY A PENALTY SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE AO DID NOT SPECIFY THE CHARGE FOR WHICH PENALTY PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED AND FURTHER HE HAS ISSUED A NOTICE MEANT FOR CALLING THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH THE RETURN OF INCOME. HENCE, IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT SPECIFY THE CHARGE FOR WHICH T HE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED AND ALSO ISSUED AN INCORRECT NOTICE. BOTH THE ACTS OF THE AO, IN OUR VIEW, CLEARLY SHOW THAT THE AO DID NOT APPLY HIS MIND WHEN HE ISSUED NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE AND HE WAS NOT SURE AS TO WHAT PURPOSE THE NOTICE WAS ISS UED. THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HAS DISCUSSED ABOUT NON - APPLICATION OF MIND IN THE CASE OF KAUSHALYA (SUPRA) AND OBSERVED AS UNDER: - ....THE NOTICE CLEARLY DEMONSTRATED NON - APPLICATION OF MIND ON THE PART OF THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER. T HE VAGUENESS AND AMBIGUITY IN THE NOTICE HAD ALSO PREJUDICED THE RIGHT OF REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF THE ASSESSEE SINCE HE DID NOT KNOW WHAT EXACT CHARGE HE HAD TO FACE. IN THIS BACK GROUND, QUASHING OF THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1967 - 6 8 SEEMS TO BE FULLY JUSTIFIED. ITA. NO.3008 /M/201 6 A.Y. 20 09 - 10 8 IN THE INSTANT CASE ALSO, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE AO HAS ISSUED A NOTICE, THAT TOO INCORRECT ONE, IN A ROUTINE MANNER. FURTHER THE NOTICE DID NOT SPECIFY THE CHARGE FOR WHICH THE PENALTY NOTICE WAS ISSUED. HENCE, IN O UR VIEW, THE AO HAS FAILED TO APPLY HIS MIND AT THE TIME OF ISSUING PENALTY NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE. 12. THE AFORESAID DISCUSSION CLEARLY BRINGS OUT AS TO THE REASONS WHY THE PARITY OF REASONING LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF DILIP N. SHROFF (SUPRA) IS TO PREVAIL. FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF OUR COORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF DR. SARITA MILIND DAVARE (SUPRA), WE HEREBY REJECT THE AFORESAID ARGUMENT OF THE LD. CIT - DR. 13. APART FROM THE AFORESAID DISCUSSION, WE MAY ALSO REFER TO THE ONE MORE SEMINAL FEATURE OF THIS CASE WHICH WOULD DEMONSTRATE THE IMPORTANCE OF NON - STRIKING OFF OF IRRELEVANT CLAUSE IN THE NOTICE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. AS NOTED EARLIER, IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 10.12.2010 THE ASSESSING OFFICER RECORDS THAT TH E PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT ARE TO BE INITIATED FOR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. HOWEVER, IN THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 274 R.W.S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT OF EVEN DATE, BOTH THE LIMBS OF SEC. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT ARE REPRODUC ED IN THE PROFORMA NOTICE AND THE IRRELEVANT CLAUSE HAS NOT BEEN STRUCK - OFF. QUITE CLEARLY, THE OBSERVATION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND NON - STRIKING OFF OF THE IRRELEVANT CLAUSE IN THE NOTICE CLEARLY BRINGS OUT THE DIFFIDENCE ON T HE PART OF ASSESSING OFFICER AND THERE IS NO CLEAR AND CRYSTALLISED CHARGE BEING CONVEYED TO THE ASSESSEE U/S 271(1)(C), WHICH HAS TO BE MET BY HIM. AS NOTED BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF DILIP N. SHROFF (SUPRA), THE QUASI - CRIMINAL PROCEEDIN GS U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT OUGHT TO COMPLY WITH THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE, AND IN THE PRESENT CASE, CONSIDERING THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ALONGSIDE HIS ACTION OF NON - STRIKING OFF OF THE IRRELEVANT CLAUSE IN THE NOTICE SHOWS THAT THE CHARGE BEING MADE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE QUA SEC. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT IS NOT FIRM AND, THEREFORE, THE PROCEEDINGS SUFFER FROM NON - COMPLIANCE WITH PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE INASMUCH AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS HIMSELF UNSURE AND ASSESSEE IS NOT MADE AWARE AS TO WHICH OF THE TWO LIMBS OF SEC. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT HE HAS TO RESPOND. ITA. NO.3008 /M/201 6 A.Y. 20 09 - 10 9 14. THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID DISCUSSION, IN OUR VIEW, THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 274 R.W.S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT DATED 10.12.2010 IS UNTENABLE AS IT SUFFERS FROM THE VICE OF NON - APPLICATION OF MIND HAVING REGARD TO THE RATIO OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF DILIP N. SHROFF (SUPRA) AS WELL AS THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CA SE OF SHRI SAMSON PERINCHERY (SUPRA). THUS, ON THIS COUNT ITSELF THE PENALTY IMPOSED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT IS LIABLE TO BE DELETED. WE HOLD SO. SINCE THE PENALTY HAS BEEN DELETED ON THE PRELIMINARY POINT, THE OTHER ARGUMENTS RAISED BY THE APPELLANT AR E NOT BEING DEALT WITH. 5 . IN VIEW OF THE SAID CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) CONFIRMATION THE PENALTY IS NOT JUSTIFIABLE, T HEREFORE, WE SET ASIDE THE SAME AND DELETE THE PENALTY. 6 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED B Y THE ASSESSEE IS HEREBY ORDERED TO BE ALLOWED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29. 0 6 . 201 8 . SD/ - SD/ - ( SHAMIM YAHYA ) (AMARJIT SINGH) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED : 29. 06 . 201 8 . VIJAY ITA. NO.3008 /M/201 6 A.Y. 20 09 - 10 10 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - 4. / CIT 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// / / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI