Iqbal Singh Dahiya, Gurgaon V. ITO, Ward-2(2), Gurgaon

ITA 4861/DEL/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1812 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-11-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 09-07-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S L ANURAGI
• Keywords: Question of law; Initiation of penalty proceedings; Reasonable cause
• Section: 142(1); 148; 2

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: SMC NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A .NO.-4861/DEL/2018 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2012-13) IQBAL SINGH DAHIYA C/O CA M.R. SAHU, M SAHU & ASSOCIATES, CAS HOUSE NO.651, 1 ST FLOOR, SECTOR-10A, GURGAON, HARYANA. PAN NO. AAPPD6473K VS ITO(E), WARD 2(2), NEW DELHI. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SHRI M.R. SAHU, CA RESPONDENT BY SHRI S.L. ANURAGI, SR. DR ORDER THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAI NST THE ORDER DATED 23.4.2018 OF THE LD. CIT(A)-I, GURGAON RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: - 1. THAT HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF AO IN LEVYING PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(109C0 OF RS . 1,85,400/- AND THAT TOO WITHOUT ASSUMING JURISDICTION AS PER L AW AND WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E IMPUGNED PENALTY ORDER BEING ILLEGAL AND VOID AB INITIO. 2. THAT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, NOTICE DATED 20.3.2015 ISSUED BY AO UNDER SECTION 2 74 READ WITH SECTION 271 WAS BAD IN LAW AND DEFECTIVE AS IT DID NOT SPECIFY UNDER WHICH LIMB OF SECTION 271(1) PENALTY PROCEED INGS HAD BEEN INITIATED I.E. WHETHER FOR CONCEALMENT OF PART ICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF I NCOME. 3. THAT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 274 READ WITH SECTION 2 71 WAS DEFECTIVE, HENCE, PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1) CO ULD NOT BE IMPOSED ON THE BASIS OF THAT DEFECTIVE NOTICE HAVIN G REGARD TO THE RATIO OF THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SSAS EMERALD MEADOWS REPORTED IN (2016) 73 TAXMANN.COM 248 (SC). 4. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER OR WI THDRAW ANY GROUND OR GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE OR AT THE HEARIN G OF THE APPEAL. ITA NOS. 4861/D/2018 A.Y. 2012-13 IQBAL SINGH DAHIYA 2 2. FACTS NARRATED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ARE N OT DISPUTED BY BOTH THE PARTIES, HENCE, THE SAME ARE N OT REPEATED HERE FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY. 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSES SEE HAS STATED THAT NO SPECIFIC ALLEGATION AS TO THE CONCEA LMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS HAS BEEN LEVIED BY THE AO IN THE NOTICE DATED 17/20.03. 2015 ISSUED BY HIM U/S. 271(1) OF THE ACT ATTACHED WITH THE PA PER BOOK PAGE NO. 6 FILED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WHICH CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE SAME IS THE STANDARD FORMAT OF THE N OTICE AND AO HAS JUST MENTIONED THAT .HAVE CONCEALED THE PA RTICULARS OF YOUR INCOME OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME... HE FURTHER STATED THAT THE PENALTY IMPO SED IS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED ON LEGAL GROUNDS AS THE ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS.: - HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT & ORS. VS. M/S MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNIG FACTORY & ORS. (2013) 359 ITR 565 - APEX COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT & ANR. VS. M/S SSAS EMERALD MEADOWS IN CC NO. 11485/2016 DATED 05.8.2016. 4. ON THE CONTRARY, LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDERS O F THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 5. I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE R ELEVANT RECORDS, ESPECIALLY THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTH ORITIES ALONGWITH THE PROVISIONS OF LAW AS WELL AS THE CAS E LAW CITED BY THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE. I HAVE ALSO PERUS ED THE NOTICE DATED 17/20.03.2015 ISSUED BY THE AO FOR INI TIATION OF ITA NOS. 4861/D/2018 A.Y. 2012-13 IQBAL SINGH DAHIYA 3 PENALTY AND DIRECTING THE ASSESSEE TO APPEAR BEFOR E HIM. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, SOME OF THE CONTENTS OF THE PENALTY NOTICE DATED 17/20.03.2015 ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER: - ..IT APPEARS TO ME THAT YOU:- * HAVE WITHOUT REASONABLE CAUSE FAILED TO FURNISH ME RETURN OF INCOME WHICH YOU WERE REQUIRED TO FURNISH BY A NOTICE GIVEN U/S. 142(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, OR WHICH YOU WERE REQUIRED TO FURNISH UNDER SECTION 139(1) OR BY A NOTICE GIVEN UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 NO.DATEDOR HAVE WITHOUT REASONABLE CAUSE FAILED TO FURNISH IT WITHIN THE TIME ALALOWED AND THE MANNER REQUIRED BY THE SAID SECTION 139(1) OR BY SUCH NOTICE. * HAVE CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF YOUR INCOME OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME. * HAVE WITHOUT REASONABLE CAUSE FAILED TO COMPLY WITH A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 142(1)/143(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 DATED. 2. YOU ARE HEREBY REQUIRED TO APPEAR BEFORE ME ON 09.4.2015 AT 10:15 AM AND SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY AN ORDER IMPOSING A PENALTY ON YOU SHOULD NOT BE MADE UNDER SECTION 271(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. IF YOU DO NOT WISH TO AVAIL YOURSELF OF THIS OPPORTUNITY TO BEING HEARD IN PERSON OR THROUGH AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE YOU MAY SHOW CAUSE IN WRITING ITA NOS. 4861/D/2018 A.Y. 2012-13 IQBAL SINGH DAHIYA 4 ON OR BEFORE THE SAID DATE WHICH WILL BE CONSIDERED BEFORE ANY SUCH ORDER IS MADE UNDER SECTION 271(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 5.1 AFTER PERUSING THE AFORESAID CONTENTS OF THE NO TICE DATED 17/20.03.2015, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE AO HAS INI TIATED THE PENALTY FOR CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS, WHICH IS CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF LAW. I AM ALSO OF THE VIEW THAT NOTICE ISSUED BY T HE AO U/S. 271(1) READ WITH SECTION 274 OF THE ACT IS BAD IN LAW AS IT DOES NOT SPECIFY UNDER WHICH LIMB OF SECTION 271(1) OF THE ACT, THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS HAD BEEN INITIATED I. E. WHETHER FOR CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS. THEREFORE, THE PENALTY IN DISPUTE IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW. MY AFORESAID VIEW IS SUPPORTED BY THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS:- I) CIT & ANR. VS. M/S SSAS EMERALD MEADOWS 2015 (11) TMI 1620 KARNATAKA HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT TRIBUNAL HAS CORRECTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE HOLDING THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 274 READ WITH SECTION 271(1)(C) TO BE BAD IN LAW AS IT DID NOT SPECIFY WHICH LIMB OF SECTION 271(1) 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 ITA NOS. 4861/D/2018 A.Y. 2012-13 IQBAL SINGH DAHIYA 5 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) (7) TMI 620- KARANATAKA HIGH COURT. THUS SINCE THE MATTER IS COVERED BY JUDGMENT OF THE DIVISION BENCH OF THIS COURT, WE ARE OF THE OPINION NO SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW ARISES DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE. II) CIT & ANR. VS. M/S SSAS EMERALD MEADOWS HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA REPORTED IN 2016 (8) TMI 1145 SUPREME COURT. THE APEX COURT HELD THAT HIGH COURT ORDER CONFIRMED (2015) (11) TMI 1620 (SUPRA) KARNATAKA HIGH COURT. NOTICE ISSUED BY AO UNDER SECTION 274 READ WITH SECTION 271(1)(C) TO BE BAD IN LAW AS IT DID NOT SPECIFY WHICH LIMB OF SECTION 271(1) 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 DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE. III) ITAT, A BENCH, NEW DELHI DECISION DATED 05.12.2017 IN THE CASE OF ASHOK KUMAR CHORDIA VS. DCIT PASSED IN ITA NO. 5788 TO 5790/DEL/2014 WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL HAS OBSERVED AS UNDER:- ITA NOS. 4861/D/2018 A.Y. 2012-13 IQBAL SINGH DAHIYA 6 7. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ALONGWITH THE RELEVANT RECORDS AVAILABLE WITH US. FIRSTLY, WE HAVE PERUSED THE NOTICE DATED 26.3.2013 ISSUED BY THE AO FOR INITIATING THE PENALTY AND DIRECTING THE ASSESSEE TO APPEAR BEFORE HIM AT 11.30 AM ON 26/04/2013 AND ISSUED A SHOW CAUSE TO THE ASSESSEE STATING THEREIN THAT ..YOU HAVE CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF YOUR INCOME OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME. AFTER PERUSING THE NOTICE DATED 26.3.2013 ISSUED BY THE AO TO THE ASSESSEE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE AO HAS INITIATED THE PENALTY FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME AS WELL AS IN THE PENALTY ORDER DATED 30.9.2013 AO HAS STATED THAT HE IS SATISFIED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CONCEALED PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME, WHICH IS CONTRARY TO LAW. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, THE PENALTY IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW. ITA NOS. 4861/D/2018 A.Y. 2012-13 IQBAL SINGH DAHIYA 7 OUR AFORESAID VIEW IS FORTIFIED BY THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS:- I) CIT & ANR. VS. M/S SSAS EMERALD MEADOWS 2015 (11) TMI 1620 KARNATAKA HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT TRIBUNAL HAS CORRECTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE HOLDING THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 274 READ WITH SECTION 271(1)(C) TO BE BAD IN LAW AS IT DID NOT SPECIFY WHICH LIMB OF SECTION 271(1) 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) (7) TMI 620- KARANATAKA ITA NOS. 4861/D/2018 A.Y. 2012-13 IQBAL SINGH DAHIYA 8 HIGH COURT. THUS SINCE THE MATTER IS COVERED BY JUDGMENT OF THE DIVISION BENCH OF THIS COURT, WE ARE OF THE OPINION NO SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW ARISES DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE. II) CIT & ANR. VS. M/S SSAS EMERALD MEADOWS HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA REPORTED IN 2016 (8) TMI 1145 SUPREME COURT. THE APEX COURT HELD THAT HIGH COURT ORDER CONFIRMED (2015) (11) TMI 1620 (SUPRA) KARNATAKA HIGH COURT. NOTICE ISSUED BY AO UNDER SECTION 274 READ WITH SECTION 271(1)(C) TO BE BAD IN LAW AS IT DID NOT SPECIFY WHICH LIMB OF SECTION 271(1) 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 DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE. ITA NOS. 4861/D/2018 A.Y. 2012-13 IQBAL SINGH DAHIYA 9 8. IN THE BACKGROUND OF THE AFORESAID DISCUSSIONS AND RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE PRECEDENTS, WE DELETE THE PENALTY IN DISPUTE AND DECIDE THE ISSUE IN FAVOR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE. IV) ITAT, D BENCH, NEW DELHI DECISION DATED 26.5.2017 IN THE CASE OF RAJENDER JAIN VS. ACIT PASSED IN ITA NO. 6804/DEL/2013 WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL HAS OBSERVED AS UNDER:- 7. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ALONGWITH THE RELEVANT RECORDS AVAILABLE WITH US. FIRSTLY, WE HAVE PERUSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREIN THE AO HAS RECORDED HIS SATISFACTION ON THE PAGE 2, 2 ND PARA VIZ. I AM SATISFIED THAT IT IS A FIT CASE FOR INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME/CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. WE HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE NOTICE DATED 31.12.2007 ISSUED BY THE AO FOR INITIATING THE PENALTY AND DIRECTING THE ASSESSEE TO APPEAR BEFORE HIM AT ITA NOS. 4861/D/2018 A.Y. 2012-13 IQBAL SINGH DAHIYA 10 ---------AM/PM ON --------200----- - AND ISSUED A SHOW CAUSE TO THE ASSESSEE STATING THEREIN THAT WHY AN ORDER IMPOSING THE PENALTY OF AMOUNT SHOULD NOT BE MADE U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. AFTER PERUSING THE NOTICE DATED 31.12.2007 ISSUED BY THE AO TO THE ASSESSEE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE AO HAS INITIATED THE PENALTY FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME/CONCEALMENT OF INCOME, BUT IN THE PENALTY ORDER DATED 06.11.2009 HE HAS STATED THAT HE IS SATISFIED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED THE INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. 7.1 HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GIVEN CLEAR FINDING REGARDING THE FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, THE RELEVANT PARA NO. 5.3.1 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- 5.3.1 THE ABOVE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) CLEARLY ESTABLISHES THAT THE APPELLANT HAS ITA NOS. 4861/D/2018 A.Y. 2012-13 IQBAL SINGH DAHIYA 11 CONCEALED THE INCOME OF RS. 26,50,500/- AND DID NOT DECLARE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME INSPITE OF ADMITTING A DISCLOSURE OF RS. 40,00,000/- DURING SURVEY. THUS, THE APPELLANT HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME. THE FACTS OF THE CASE CLEARLY REVEAL THAT THE APPELLANT TRIED TO EVADE PAYMENT OF TAXES BY FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THEREFORE, I HOLD THAT THE AO WAS FULLY JUSTIFIED IN LEVYING THE PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE AO IS UPHELD. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS REJECTED. 8. KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID FINDING OF THE LD. CIT(A), WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE AO HAS PASSED THE ITA NOS. 4861/D/2018 A.Y. 2012-13 IQBAL SINGH DAHIYA 12 ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREIN THE AO HAS RECORDED HIS SATISFACTION ON THE PAGE 2, 2 ND PARA VIZ. I AM SATISFIED THAT IT IS A FIT CASE FOR INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME/CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. FURTHER THE AO VIDE HIS NOTICE DATED 31.12.2007 FOR INITIATING THE PENALTY AND DIRECTED THE ASSESSEE TO APPEAR BEFORE HIM AT ---------AM/PM ON -------- 200------ AND ISSUED A SHOW CAUSE TO THE ASSESSEE STATING THEREIN THAT WHY AN ORDER IMPOSING THE PENALTY OF AMOUNT SHOULD NOT BE MADE U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. AFTER PERUSING THE NOTICE DATED 31.12.2007 ISSUED BY THE AO TO THE ASSESSEE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE AO HAS INITIATED THE PENALTY FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME/ CONCEALMENT OF INCOME, BUT IN THE PENALTY ORDER DATED 06.11.2009 HE HAS STATED THAT HE IS SATISFIED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED THE INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. IN OUR VIEW ITA NOS. 4861/D/2018 A.Y. 2012-13 IQBAL SINGH DAHIYA 13 THE PENALTY IN DISPUTE IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW, BECAUSE THE AO HAS NOT RECORDED ANY CLEAR FINDING WHETHER THE ASSESSEE WAS GUILTY OF CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. SECONDLY, THE NOTICE U/S. 271(1)(C) HAS BEEN ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE LEVYING THE PENALTY FOR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME/CONCEALMENT OF INCOME, WHEREAS THE PENALTY IN DISPUTE HAS BEEN LEVIED BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS. IN OUR VIEW THE PENALTY IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW. OUR AFORESAID VIEW IS FORTIFIED BY THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS:- I) CIT & ANR. VS. M/S EMERALD MEADOWS 2015 (11) TMI 1620 KARNATAKA HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT TRIBUNAL HAS CORRECTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE HOLDING THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 274 READ WITH SECTION 271(1)(C) TO BE BAD IN LAW AS IT DID NOT SPECIFY WHICH LIMB OF SECTION 271(1) OF THE ACT, THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS HAD ITA NOS. 4861/D/2018 A.Y. 2012-13 IQBAL SINGH DAHIYA 14 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) (7) TMI 620- KARANATAKA HIGH COURT. THUS SINCE THE MATTER IS COVERED BY JUDGMENT OF THE DIVISION BENCH OF THIS COURT, WE ARE OF THE OPINION NO SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW ARISES DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE. II) CIT & ANR. VS. M/S SSAS EMERALD MEADOWS HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA REPORTED IN 2016 (8) TMI 1145 SUPREME COURT. THE APEX COURT HELD THAT HIGH COURT ORDER CONFIRMED (2015) (11) TMI 1620 (SUPRA) KARNATAKA HIGH COURT. NOTICE ISSUED BY AO UNDER SECTION 274 READ WITH SECTION 271(1)(C) TO BE BAD IN LAW AS IT DID NOT SPECIFY WHICH LIMB OF SECTION 271(1) 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 DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE. ITA NOS. 4861/D/2018 A.Y. 2012-13 IQBAL SINGH DAHIYA 15 8.1 IN THE BACKGROUND OF THE AFORESAID DISCUSSIONS AND RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE PRECEDENTS, WE DELETE THE PENALTY IN DISPUTE AND DECIDE THE ISSUE IN FAVOR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE. 6. KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID DISCUSSIONS AND RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID PRECEDENTS, I CANCEL THE PENALTY IN DISPUTE BY RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE AF ORESAID DECISIONS AND ALLOW THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSES SEE. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESS EE STANDS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 22.11.2018. SD/- (H.S. SIDHU) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 22/11/2018 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI