M/S. KALANI INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., Indore V. THE DCIT 1(1), Indore

ITA 419/IND/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0112 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 9 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-04-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 25-03-2019
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 05-06-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASHIMA GUPTA; R S AMBEDKAR
• Keywords: Loose papers; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Non compliance; Set aside
• Section: 271(1)(c); 143(3); 153A; 14A; 27; 132

Judgement Text

KALANI INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD ITA NO.419/IND/2015 1 , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.419/IND/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 REVENUE BY SMT. ASHIMA GUPTA, CIT & SHRI R.S. AMBEDKAR, SR. DR ASSESSEE BY S/ S HRI MANJIT SACHDEVA & AVINASH GAUR, ADVOCATES DATE OF HEARING 2 6 .03 . 201 9 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 01 .0 4 . 201 9 O R D E R PER MANISH BORAD, AM. THE ABOVE CAPTIONED APPEAL IS FILED AT THE INSTANCE OF ASSESSEE PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-07 AND IS DIREC TED AGAINST THE ORDERS OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)- I (IN SHORT LD.CIT(A)], INDORE DATED 21.01.2015 WHICH IS ARIS ING OUT OF THE ORDER U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961(IN SHORT THE ACT) DATED 29.06.2012 FRAMED BY DCIT-1(1), INDORE. M/S. KAL ANI INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD, 11 TUKOGANJ MAIN ROAD, INDORE VS. DCIT 1(1), INDORE ( APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT ) PAN AAACK7074P KALANI INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD ITA NO.419/IND/2015 2 2. ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL; 01. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (AP PEAL) IN GIVING DIRECTION OF LEVYING THE PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF T HE INCOME TAX ACT DURING THE APPEAL PROCEEDINGS ON THE ADDITION MADE OF RS.18,OO ,OOO/- ON ACCOUNT OF LOOSE PAPERS AND OF RS.L,10,914/-UNDER SECTION 14A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 02. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A PPEAL) GAVE DIRECTION OF LEVYING THE PENALTY WITHOUT PROVIDING ANY OPPORTUNI TY TO THE ASSESSEE AND AS SUCH DIRECTION GIVEN TO LEVY PENALTY IS AGAINST THE NATURAL LAW OF JUSTICE. 03. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (AP PEAL) GAVE THE DIRECTION TO LEVY THE PENALTY SUO MOTTO AND WITHOUT APPRECIAT ING THAT NO PENALTY PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE ADDITIONS MADE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 04. THAT THE PENALTY LEVIED IS UNLAWFUL AND NOT BAS ED ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 05. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, AMEN D AND JAR DELETE ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. ADDTLONAL GROUND OF APPEAL 01 THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER FAILED TO SPECIFY WHE THER THE ASSESSEE HAD CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. 02 THAT IN VIEW OF THE DECISION IN THE CASES OF '. - 1. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VIS. KULWANT SING H BHATIA (2018) 33 IT J 777 (MP) KALANI INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD ITA NO.419/IND/2015 3 2 DEE VEE FOODS (P.) LLD VIS. DY. COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME TAX (2018) 33 IT J 245 (TRIB.-INDORE) 3. HARISH CHAND SONI VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER (2018) 32 IT J 728 (TRIB-JABALPUR) 3. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE RAISED ADDITIONAL LEGAL GROUND CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF NOTICE ISSUED U/S 274 R.W.S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT CLAIMING IT TO BE ILLEG AL AND BAD IN LAW. WE FIND THAT THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT RAISED THE LEGAL G ROUND AT THE TIME OF FILING THE APPEAL BUT IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION AND FOLLOWING THE RATIO OF JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF NATIO NAL THERMAL POWER COMPANY LIMITED 229 ITR 383(SC) AS WELL AS IN THE CASE OF JUTE CORPORATION OF INDIA 178 ITR 668 (SC) THE ADDITIONA L LEGAL GROUNDS RAISED BEFORE US DESERVES TO BE ADMITTED FOR ADJUDICATION, IF THE SAME INVOLVES POINT OF LAW WHICH DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY FURTHER INV ESTIGATION OF FACTS. IT IS ALSO CLEAR THAT THE ISSUES RAISED IN THE ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL GOES TO THE ROOT OF THE JURISDICTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER TO LEVY THE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT AND THEREFORE THE SAME IS RELE VANT TO DETERMINE THE LIABILITY OF THE ASSESSEE FOR PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C ) OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY THE ADDITIONAL GROUND IS ADMITTED FOR ADJUDICATION. KALANI INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD ITA NO.419/IND/2015 4 4. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS AS CULLED OUT FROM THE RECO RDS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MA NUFACTURING, LEASING & HIRE PURCHASE, WIND FARM, TRADING, REAL ESTATE DE VELOPMENT AND COLD STORAGE. A SEARCH U/S 132 OF THE ACT WAS CONDUCTED AT THE ASSESSEES BUSINESS PREMISES ON 16.4.2009. NOTICES U/S 153A D ATED 22.10.2010 WAS ISSUED AND SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE ON 28.10.20 10 AND IN PURSUANCE TO IT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED ITS RETURN O F INCOME DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT NIL. ASSESSMENT U/S 153A R.W.S. 143(3) O F THE ACT WAS COMPLETED COMPUTING INCOME AT RS.94,95,920/-. AGGR IEVED ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEALS BEFORE LD. CIT(A) AND PARTLY SUCC EEDED. SUBSEQUENTLY AFTER INITIATING PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT PENALTY AT RS.18,00,000/- FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 WAS LEVI ED FOR CONCEALING THE INCOME BY FURNISHING WRONG PARTICULARS OF INCOM E. AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE LD.CIT(A) BUT COULD NOT SUCCEED. 5. AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE THE T RIBUNAL CHALLENGING THE LEGALITY OF THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS AS WELL AS RAISING GROUNDS ON MERITS CHALLENGING THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT AT RS.18,00,000/-. KALANI INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD ITA NO.419/IND/2015 5 6. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT AS P ER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT THE PENALTY CAN BE INI TIATED EITHER FOR CONCEALING THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FOR FURNISH ING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME, WHEREAS THE LD.A.O HAS NOT R ECORDED ANY SPECIFIC CHARGE ON THE ASSESSEE, AS TO WHETHER PENALTY IS TO BE LEVIED FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR CON CEALING THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. PLACING RELIANCE ON THE JUDGMENTS MENT IONED IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION WHICH MAINLY INCLUDES JUDGMENT OF JURISD ICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PCIT VS KULWANT SINGH BHATIA ITA NO. 9 OF 2018 DATED 9.5.2018, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDE D THAT THE LD.A.O HAS FAILED IN COMPLY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271(1)(C ) OF THE ACT BY INITIATING THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS WITH NO SPECIFIC CHARGE. R ELIANCE WAS ALSO PLACED ON INDORE TRIBUNAL DECISION IN THE CASE OF VARAD ME HTA ITA NO.693/IND/16 DATED 06.12.2018. 7. PER CONTRA DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE VEHEMENTL Y ARGUED SUPPORTING THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES. 8. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORDS PLACED BEFORE US. THE ISSUES RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE REVOL VES AROUND THE LEVY OF PENALTY AT RS.18,00,000/- LEVIED BY THE LD. A.O AND CONFIRMED BY KALANI INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD ITA NO.419/IND/2015 6 LD.CIT(A). 8. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNA L, FIRSTLY RAISING THE LEGAL ISSUE PLEADING THAT LD. A.O HAS WRONGLY INITI ATED THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS BY NOT SPECIFYING THE CHARGE FOR LEVY O F PENALTY I.E. WHETHER THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS HAS BEEN INITIATED FOR CONC EALING PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FOR FURNISHING THE INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. IT WAS ALSO PLEADED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT TH OUGH THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE PROPER SATISFACTION ON R ECORD IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR INITIATING PENALTY PROCEEDINGS BUT IN THE NOTICE ISSUE U/S 274 R.W.S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, BUT HE REMAINED SILENT BY NOT SPECIFYING AS FOR WHICH CHARGE THE PENALTY PROCEED INGS HAVE BEEN INITIATED. TO EXAMINE THIS FACT WE HAVE GONE THROU GH THE IMPUGNED NOTICE ISSUED ON 30.10.2012 FOR INITIATING THE PENA LTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. FOR REFERENCE WE REPRODUCE BELOW THE NOTICE U/S 274 OF THE ACT FOR A SSESSMENT YEAR 2006- 07; F.NO.DCIT 1(1)/IND/PENLATY U/S 271/11-12 DATE: 29/12/2011 PAN AAACK7074P KALANI INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD ITA NO.419/IND/2015 7 TO M/S. KALANI INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD, 11, SOUTH TUKOGANJ, MAIN ROAD, INDORE, SIR, NOTICE UNDER SECTION 274 READ WITH SECTION 271(1)(C ) OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 WHEREAS IN THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE ME FOR THE A.Y 2006-07 IT APPEARS TO ME THAT YOU:- *HAVE CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF YOUR INCOME OR F URNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME. YOU ARE REQUESTED TO APPEAR BEFORE ME AT 11.30 AM O N 16/01/2012 AND SHOW CAUSE WHY AN ORDER IMPOSING A PENALTY ON YOU SHOULD NOT BE MADE UNDER SECTION 271 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. IF YOU DO NOT WITH TO AVAIL YOURSELF OF THIS OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD IN PERSON OR THROUGH AUTHORIZED REPRESE NTATIVE, YOU MY SHOW CAUSE IN WRITING ON OR BEFORE THE SAID DATE WHICH WILL BE CO NSIDERED BEFORE ANY SUCH ORDER IS MADE UNDER SECTION 271. YOURS FAITHFULLY, SD/- (SACHCHIDANAND DUBEY) DEPUTY COMMISSIO NER OF INCOME TAX-1(1} INDORE 9. FROM PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE SHOW CAUSE NOTICES WE FIND THAT THE LD.A.O HAS MERELY MENTIONED THE SECTION BUT THE SPE CIFIC CHARGE I.E. WHETHER THE PENALTY HAVE BEEN INITIATED FOR CONCEAL MENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME HAS NOT BEEN MENTIONED. NOW WE NEED TO ADJUDICATE AS TO WHETHER SUCH TYPE OF NOTICE KALANI INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD ITA NO.419/IND/2015 8 WHICH DOES NOT SPEAK ABOUT THE SPECIFIC CHARGE LEVE LED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE IS VALID AND TENABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW. 10. WE FIND THAT SIMILAR ISSUE CAME UP FOR ADJUDICA TION BEFORE US IN THE CASE OF VARAD MEHTA ITA NO.693/IND/16 DATED 06.12.2 018 (SUPRA) WHEREIN WE HAVE DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE OBSERVING AS FOLLOWS; 11. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED TH E RECORDS PLACED BEFORE US. THE ISSUES RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE REVOLVES ARO UND THE LEVY OF PENALTY AT RS.16,00,000/- LEVIED BY THE LD. A.O AND CONFIRMED BY LD.CIT(A) ON THE ADDITION OF RS.51,00,000/- FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES FOR PURCHASE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES. PERUSAL OF RECORDS SHOWS THAT THE ASSE SSEE REMAINING NEGLIGENT AND NON COMPLIANT TO VARIOUS OPPORTUNITIES PROVIDED BY THE LD. A.O AS WELL AS LD.CIT(A) DURING THE COURSE OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS AS WELL AS APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS TOWARDS THE LEVY OF PENALTY. 12. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUN AL, FIRSTLY RAISING THE LEGAL ISSUE PLEADING THAT LD. A.O HAS WRONGLY INITIATED T HE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS BY NOT SPECIFYING THE CHARGE FOR LEVY OF PENALTY I.E. WHET HER THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS HAS BEEN INITIATED FOR CONCEALING OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FOR FURNISHING THE INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. IT WAS ALSO PLEAD ED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THOUGH THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE PROPER SATISFACTION ON RECORD IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR INITIATING PENAL TY PROCEEDINGS BUT IN THE NOTICE ISSUE U/S 274 R.W.S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, B UT LD. A.O REMAINED SILENT BY NOT SPECIFYING AS TO WHICH CHARGE THE PENALTY PROC EEDINGS HAVE BEEN INITIATED. TO EXAMINE THIS FACT WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE IMPUG NED NOTICE ISSUED FOR INITIATING THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) O F THE ACT WHICH IS PLACED AT PAGE-52 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND THE RELEVANT EXTRACT IS REPRODUCED BELOW: KALANI INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD ITA NO.419/IND/2015 9 TO SHRI VARAD MEHTA 239, SUNNY PALACE M P NAGAR ZONE-1, BHOPAL SIR / MADAM, SUB:- PENALTY PROCEEDING U/S .. 271( 1 ) ( C) .. OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 FOR THE AY 2008.09 IN CONNECTION WITH THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S, 271 (1) (C) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR(S) 2008-09 YOU ARE REQUESTED TO ATT END MY OFFICE ON 18.01. 2010 AT 11.00 AM TO SHOW CAUSE WHY PENALTY SHOULD N OT BE IMPOSED. HOWEVER. IF YOU DO NOT WISH TO BE HEARD IN PERSON IN THIS RE GARD, YOU MAY SUBMIT YOUR WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS SO AS TO REACH ME BY THE ABOVE DATE WHICH WILL BE CONSIDERED BEFORE DISPOSAL OF THE MATTER. SD/- ( SHRLKANT NAMDEO ) DEPUTY GOMMISSFSONEROF1NCO ME TAX-1(1}, BHOPAL BHOPAL 13. FROM PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE WE FIND THAT THE LD.A.O HAS MERELY MENTIONED THE SECTION BUT THE SPECIFIC CHARG E I.E. WHETHER THE PENALTY HAVE BEEN INITIATED FOR CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME HAS NOT BEEN MENTI ONED. NOW WHETHER SUCH TYPE OF NOTICE WHICH DOES NOT SPEAK ABOUT THE SPECI FIC CHARGE LEVELED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE IS VALID AND TENABLE IN THE EYES OF L AW NEEDS TO BE EXAMINED. 14. WE FIND THAT SIMILAR ISSUE CAME UP BEFORE THE J URISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SHRI KULWANT SINGH BHATIA (SUPRA) WHERE IN THE HON'BLE COURT DISCUSSED THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN TH E CASE OF CIT V/S MANJUNATHA COTTON GINNING FACTORY (SUPRA) AND CIT V/S SSAS EMERALAD KALANI INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD ITA NO.419/IND/2015 10 MEADOWS (SUPRA) HELD THAT ON DUE CONSIDERATION OF THE ARGUMENTS OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT, SO ALSO CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE GROUND MENTIONED IN SHOW CAUSE NOTICE WOULD NOT SPECIFY THE REQUIREM ENT OF LAW, AS NOTICE WAS NOT SPECIFIC, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT LD. TRIBUNAL HAS RIGHTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF PENALTY ENFORCE D BY THE AUTHORITY. 15. SIMILARLY IN THE CASE OF CIT V/S MANJUNATHA GIN NING FACTORY, HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HELD THAT THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 274 R.W.S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT SHOULD SPECIFICALLY MENTION THE GROUND IN S ECTION 271(1)(C) WHETHER CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FOR FURNISHING IN ACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. SENDING PRINTED FORM WHERE ALL GROUND OF SECTION 27 1(1)(C ) WOULD NOT MENTIONED THE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENT OF LAW. ASSESSEE SHOULD KN OW THE GROUNDS ON WHICH HE HAS CHARGED SPECIFIC OTHERWISE OPPORTUNITIES OF NAT URAL JUSTICE DENIED. ON THE BASIS OF SUCH PROCEEDINGS NO PENALTY COULD BE IMPOS ED TO THE ASSESSEE. TAKING UP THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ON ONE LIMB AND FINDING THE ASSESSSEE IN ANOTHER LIMB IS BAD IN LAW. THOUGH IN THE INSTANT APPEAL THE LD. A.O HAS MADE PROPER SATISFACTION IN THE BODY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER BU T IN THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 274 R.W.S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT HE FAILED TO MENTIO N THE LIMBS FOR WHICH PENALTY PROCEEDINGS HAVE BEEN INITIATED. IT IS THE NEGLIGE NCE OF THE LD. A.O IN NOT MAKING PROPER SPECIFIC CHARGE IN THE NOTICE U/S 274 ABOUT THE ADDITION FOR WHICH PENALTY PROCEEDINGS HAVE BEEN INITIATED. LD. A.O SHOULD BE CLEAR AS TO WHETHER THE ALLEGED ADDITION GOES UNDER THE LIMB OF CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. MERELY ISSUING NOTICE IN GENERAL PROFORMA WILL NEGATE THE VERY PUR POSE OF NATURAL JUSTICE AS HELD BY THE HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF DILI P N SHRAF 161 TAXMANN 218 THAT THE QUASI- CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C ) OF THE ACT OUGHT TO COMPLY WITH THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 14. WE THEREFORE RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING ABOVE REFER RED JUDGMENTS AND IN THE GIVEN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE ARE OF TH E CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE KALANI INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD ITA NO.419/IND/2015 11 ALLEGED NOTICE ISSUED U/S 274 R.W.S. 271(1)(C) OF T HE ACT DATED 31.12.10 IS INVALID, UNTENABLE AND SUFFERS FROM THE INFIRMITY O F NON APPLICATION OF MIND BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. WE ACCORDINGLY DIRECT TO DEL ETE THE PENALTY OF RS.16,00,000/- IMPOSED U/S 271(1)(C) ON THIS GROUND ITSELF. WE ACCORDINGLY ALLOW THE ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE LEGALITY OF THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS INITIATED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. SI NCE THE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) ALSO HAS BEEN DEALT ON THE PRELIMINARY POINTS OTHER ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE DEALING WITH THE MERITS OF THE LEVY OF PENALTY ARE NOT BEEN DEALT WITH, AS THE SAME ARE RENDERED ACADEMIC IN NATURE AND THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 IS ALLOWED. 11. WE THEREFORE RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING ABOVE REFER RED JUDGMENTS AND IN THE GIVEN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE ARE O F THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE ALLEGED NOTICE ISSUED U/S 274 R.W.S. 271(1 )(C) OF THE ACT DATED 30.10.12 IS INVALID, UNTENABLE AND SUFFERS FROM THE INFIRMITY OF NON APPLICATION OF MIND BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. WE AC CORDINGLY DIRECT TO DELETE THE PENALTY OF RS.18,00,000/- FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-07 LEVIED U/S 271(1)(C) ON THIS GROUND ITSELF. WE ACCORDINGL Y ALLOW THE ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE LEGALITY OF TH E PENALTY PROCEEDINGS INITIATED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. SINCE THE ISSU E OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) HAS BEEN DEALT AND PENALTY DELETED ON THE PRELIMINA RY LEGAL POINT ITSELF, OTHER ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE DEALING WITH THE ME RITS FOR THE LEVY OF PENALTY ARE NOT BEEN DEALT BY US, AS THE SAME ARE R ENDERED ACADEMIC IN NATURE AND THUS NEED NOT BE ADJUDICATED. KALANI INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD ITA NO.419/IND/2015 12 15. IN THE RESULT APPEAL (ITA NO.419/IND/2015) OF T HE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 IS ALLOWED. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 01.04.20 19. SD/- SD/- ( KUL BHARAT) (MANISH BORAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / DATED : 01 APRIL, 2019 /DEV COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/CIT CONCERNED/CIT (A) CONCERNED/ DR, ITAT, INDORE/GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, ASSTT.REGISTRAR, I.T.A.T., INDORE