Darshan pal Singh grewal, Ludhiana V. DCIT, CC, Jalandhar

ITA 491/ASR/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5659 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-02-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 28-11-2019
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 19-07-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRABHJO T KAUR LD
• Assessee Lawyers: ASHRAY SARNA LD
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Retrospective amendment; Question of law; Initiation of penalty proceedings; Reasonable cause; Revised return; Set aside; Audi alteram partem
• Section: 271(1)(c); 250; 292BB; 274; 192; 139(1); 73; 13; 27

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE SH. N.K.CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. A.L.SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS.490 & 491/ASR/2019 ASSESSMENT YEARS:2008-09 & 2011-12 SH. DARSHAN PAL SINGH GAREWAL, 50-RAJA GARDEN, BAREWAL, NEAR MANGAT RESORT, FEROZEPUR ROAD, LUDHIANA. VS. DY. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II JALANDHAR [PAN:AISPG 9530B] (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. ASHRAY SARNA (LD. CA) RESPONDENT BY: SMT. PRABHJOT K AUR (LD. CIT-DR) DATE OF HEARING: 28.11.2019 ITA NO.520/ASR/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 MRS. MALTI GUPTA, EG-958/2, MOHALLA GOBINDGARH, JALANDHAR. VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(4), JALANDHAR. [PAN:AAQPG 3205M] (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. P. N. ARORA (LD. ADV) RESPONDENT BY: SH. CHA RAN DASS (LD. DR) DATE OF HEARING: 27.11.2019 ITA NO.505/ASR/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1993-94 SH. TEJINDER SINGH SAHAI PROP. M/S SAHAI ENTERPRISES, KAPURTHALA. VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KAPURTHALA-II, KAPURTHALA. [PAN:AIZPS 1257N] (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NOS.490 &491/ ASR/19 ITA NO. 520/ASR/ 2017 ITA NOS.505/ASR/2017 2 APPELLANT BY : SH. J.S. BHASIN (LD. ADV.) RESPONDENT BY: SH. CHARAN DASS (LD. DR) DATE OF HEARING : 29.11.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 18.02.2020 ORDER PER N.K.CHOUDHRY, JM: ALL THE ABOVE APPEALS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEES AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDERS PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AS PER THE DETA ILS GIVEN BELOW. SR. NO. APPEAL NUMBER & ASST. YEAR DATE OF CIT/ CIT(A) ORDER OFFICE OF CIT/ CIT(A) PENALTY IMPOSED 1. ITA NO.490/ASR/2019 (A.Y.2008-09) 14/06/2019 CIT(A)-5, LUDHIANA 1,44,632/- 2. ITA NO.491/ASR/2019 (A.Y.2011-12) 14/06/2019 -DO- 7,78,020/- 4. ITA NO.520/ASR/2017 (A.Y.2009-10) 23-06-2017 CIT-2, JAL. 14,89,341/- 3. ITA NO.505/ASR/2017 (A.Y.1993-94) 22/05/2017 CIT-2, JAL. 73,030/- 2. THE ASSESSEES HAVE CHALLENGED THE AFFIRMATION OF PENALT Y LEVIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE INSTANT CASES. AS THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN ALL THESE APPEALS UNDER CONSIDERATION IS IDENTICAL, THEREFORE , FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY, HAVE BEEN TAKEN SIMULTANEOUSLY FOR ADJUDICATI ON BY THIS COMPOSITE ORDER. FOR BREVITY THE FACTS OF ITA NO.490/ASR /2019 SHALL BE QUOTED AS A LEAD CASE AND RESULT OF THE SAME SHALL BE APP LICABLE MUTATIS MUTANDIS TO ALL APPEALS UNDER CONSIDERATION. 3. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED HIS ORIGINAL R ETURN OF INCOME ON 22.07.2008 AT A TOTAL INCOME OF RS.2,23,600/ -. SUBSEQUENTLY, A SEARCH OPERATION U/S 132(1) OF THE ACT W AS HELD AT THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE ON 05.12.2012 AND THEREAFTER , VARIOUS STATUTORY NOTICES HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE. IN RESPON SE TO THE NOTICES, THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME O N 27.10.2015 ITA NOS.490 &491/ ASR/19 ITA NO. 520/ASR/ 2017 ITA NOS.505/ASR/2017 3 BY DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.2,23,600/-. THEREAFTER , THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED ANOTHER REVISED RETURN ON DATED 12.03.2015 BY DECLARING AN INCOME OF RS.6,35,280/- ON ACCOUNT OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE P ENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) ARE BEING INITIATED SEPARATELY FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME QUA ADDITION OF RS.2,90 ,568/- AND FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME QUA AMOUNT OF RS.4,11,680/-. SUB SEQUENTLY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED THE NOTICE U/S 274 R.W.S 271 OF THE ACT ON 27.03.2015 WHICH IS REPRODUCED HEREIN BELOW FOR THE SA KE OF BREVITY. NOTICE UNDER SECTION 274 READ WITH SECTION 271 OF T HE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 . PAN: AISPG 9530B OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, JALANDH AR. DATED: 27.03.2015 TO SH. DARSHAN PAL SINGH GREWAL, R/O 50-RAJA GARDEN, BAREWAL, NEAR MAGNET RESORTS, FEROZEPUR ROAD, LUDHIANA. WHEREAS IN THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE ME FOR THE ASSESSM ENT YEAR- 2008-09 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 UNDER SECTION 22( L)/22(2)/34 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1922 OR WHICH YOU WERE REQUIRED TO FURNISH U NDER SECTION 139(1)/148 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, NO------------- --------DATED--------------------- OR HAVE WITHOUT REASONABLE CAUSE FAILED TO FURNISH IT WITH IN THE TIME ALLOWED AND THE MANNER REQUIRED BY THE SAID SECTION 139(1) OR BY SUCH NOTICE. HAVE WITHOUT REASONABLE CAUSE FAILED TO COMPLY WITH A NOTI CE UNDER SECTION 22(4)/23(2) OF THE INDIAN INCOME-TAX ACT, 1922 OR UNDER SECTION 142(1)/143(2) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961. NO.---------------------------------- ----DATED------------------------------------- HAVE FURNISHED INACCURATE /CONCEALED PARTICULARS OF INCOME, AS DISCUSSED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. ITA NOS.490 &491/ ASR/19 ITA NO. 520/ASR/ 2017 ITA NOS.505/ASR/2017 4 YOU ARE HEREBY REQUESTED TO APPEAR BEFORE ME AT 11.00 A.M./P.M . ON 27.04.2015 AND SHOW CAUSE WHY AN ORDER IMPOSING A PENAL TY ON YOU SHOULD NOT BE MADE UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1 961. IF YOU DO NOT WISH AVAIL YOURSELF OF THIS OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD IN PERS ON OR THROUGH AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE YOU MAY-SHOW CAUSE IN WRITING ON OR BEFORE TH E SAID DATE WHICH WILL BE CONSIDERED ANY SUCH ORDER IS MADE UNDER SECTION 271 (L)( C). SD/- (ADITYA SHUKLA) DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, JALANDHA 4. ULTIMATELY THE ASSESSING OFFICER LEVIED THE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCO ME ON THE AMOUNT OF CAPITAL GAIN VOLUNTARILY OFFERED AT RS.4,11 ,680/- IN REVISED THE RETURN BY THE ASSESSEE. 5. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) ON THE AFORESAID GROUNDS. 1. THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER DATED 28.02.2019 IS AGAINST THE LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE . 2. THAT HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE, LD. AO HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN PASSI NG THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 271(1)( C) AND WITHOU T COMPLYING WITH THE MANDATORY CONDITIONS U/S 271 AS ENVISAGED UNDER THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 3. THAT THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER IS ERRED IN LAW IN I MPOSING PENALTY U/S 271(1)( C) OF THE ACT, IGNORING THE FAC TS OF CASE AND WITHOUT OBSERVING THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUS TICE. 4. THAT ASSESSEE REQUESTED TO ADD OR AMEND ANY GROUND OF APPEAL BEFORE THE APPEAL IS FINALLY HEARD AND DISPO SED OFF. 6. THE ASSESSEE ALSO PREFERRED TO FILE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS WH ILE MENTIONING VARIOUS JUDGMENTS INCLUDING THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE ITA NOS.490 &491/ ASR/19 ITA NO. 520/ASR/ 2017 ITA NOS.505/ASR/2017 5 KARNATAKA COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MANJUNATHA C OTTON AND GINNING FACTORY [2013] 359 ITR 0565 (KAR.) AND CIT VS. SSA S EMERALD MEDOWS, 380/15 [2016] 73 TAXMANN.COM 241 (KAR.) AND EMPHASIZED THAT NOTICE ISSUED U/S 274 OF THE ACT, BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS A DEFECTIVE NOTICE AS THE SAME DID NOT SPECIFY ANY SPECIFIC CHARGE. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER EMPHASIZED THAT IN THE INSTANT CASE THE PENALT Y PROCEEDINGS HAVE BEEN INITIATED FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICU LARS OF INCOME AND CONCEALMENT OF INCOME, WHEREAS THE PENALTY WAS LEVIED F INALLY FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME ONLY, THEREFORE, THE VERY BASIS OF IMPOSING PENALTY IS VITIATED AND HENCE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE U N-CALLED FOR AND NEEDS TO BE QUASHED. THE LD. CIT(A) DID NOT GET IMPRE SS BY THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE AND DECLARED THE PENALTY NOTICE B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICE AND LEVYING OF PENALTY AS VALID AS PER LA W . 7. THE ASSESSEE BEING AGGRIEVED AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER PREFERRED THE INSTANT APPEAL AND CHALLENGED THE AFFIR MATION OF PENALTY LEVIED BY THE A.O. ON LEGAL GROUND AS WELL AS ON MER IT. HOWEVER, AS THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US EMPHASIZED ON THE LEGAL ISSUE ONLY AND CITED VARIOUS JUDGMENTS IN HIS FAVOUR INCLUDING FEW MENTIONED BELOW:- CASES REFERRED BY LD. AR 1. CIT VS. MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY [2013 ] 359 ITR 0565 (KAR.) 2. CIT VS. SSAS EMERALD MEDOWS, 380/15 [2016] 73 TAXMA NN.COM 241 (KAR.) 3. SH. SANTOKH SINGH VS. ITO, IN APPEAL NO.498/ASR/2018 DECIDED ON 16.01.2019. DECIDED BY ITAT AMRITSAR BENCH, CAMP AT JALANDHAR. 4. SH. PURAN SINGH VS. DY. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, AND JALANDHAR IN APPEAL NO. 418/ASR/2018 , DECIDED ON 15.01.2019. ITA NOS.490 &491/ ASR/19 ITA NO. 520/ASR/ 2017 ITA NOS.505/ASR/2017 6 8. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED T HE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE, QUA INITIATION OF PENALTY PR OCEEDINGS, ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 274 AND IMPOSITION OF PENALTY ULTI MATELY. THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT AS PER LANGUAGE USED IN SECTION 27 1 OF THE ACT IT APPEARS THAT THE AO ASSUMES JURISDICTION TO INITIATE THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS, THE MOMENT HE IS SATISFIED THAT THE NECESSARY CONDITIONS HAVE BEEN SATISFIED FOR INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDI NGS. HENCE, THE SOURCE OF JURISDICTION IS SATISFACTION RECORDED IN THE ASSESSMEN T ORDER AND NOT IN ISSUANCE OF SEC.274. IN THIS REGARD THE LD. CIT D R RELIED UPON THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. S. V. ANGIDI CHETTIAR [1962] 44 ITR 739 (SC). THE LD. DR FURTHER ARGUED THAT REQUIREMENT OF ISSUING OF A NOTICE U/S 274 IS MERELY TO GIVE EFFECT TO THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND NOT A JURISDICTIONAL NECESSITY. FURTHER HEADING OF SECTION 274 MAKES IT CLEAR THAT NOTICE U/S 274 OF THE ACT IS JUST A PROCESS OF JURISDICTIONAL PROCE DURE FOR ADJUDICATING PENALTY PROCEEDINGS AND NOT A JURISDICTIONA L MATTER. THE LD. CIT DR ALSO REFERRED SECTIONS 464, 465 AND 215 OF T HE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973 AND SUBMITTED THAT ON THE DEFECTI VE CHARGES, NO ORDER OR SENTENCE OR CONVICTION CAN BE ALTERED OR SET A SIDE UNLESS THE SAME HAS OCCASIONED AS FAILURE OF JUSTICE . 9. HAVING HEARD THE PARTIES AT LENGTH AND PERUSED THE M ATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE INSTANT CASE RELATES TO THE ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 274 R.W.S 271(1) (C) OF THE ACT AS WELL AS DIFFERENCE IN RECORDING OF SATISFACTION/MENTIONING OF R EASONS FOR INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS AND IMPOSITION OF PE NALTY FINALLY. THERE ARE FOUR STAGES INVOLVED FOR DEALING WITH THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. (I) SATISFACTION FOR INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEE DINGS (II) INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ITA NOS.490 &491/ ASR/19 ITA NO. 520/ASR/ 2017 ITA NOS.505/ASR/2017 7 (III) PROVIDING OPPORTUNITIES OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE WHILE ISSUING NOTICE U/S 274 R.W.S 271 OF THE ACT. (IV) FINAL IMPOSITION OF PENALTY. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW THERE CAN BE SATISFACTION OF THE A SSESSING OFFICER FOR INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS BUT THER E IS NO CERTAINTY WITH REGARD TO THE INITIATION OF PENALTY IN EACH AND EVERY CASE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY RECORD THE SATISFACTION FOR INITIATIO N OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS, HOWEVER, IT IS NOT MANDATORY AND MUST THAT AFTER RECORDING SATISFACTION FOR INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEE DINGS, THE INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDING IN ALL CASE MUST BE A CTED UPON. EVEN AFTER INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS, THE PREROGA TIVE LIES WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS TO WHETHER HE CAN DROP THE PENALTY PR OCEEDINGS AT THE INITIAL STAGE ITSELF WITHOUT ISSUING THE NOTICE U/S 274 OF THE ACT OR TO PROCEED FURTHER WHILE DOING SO. 9.1 THE LD. DR HAS RAISED THE ISSUE THAT SOURCE OF JURISDICTION FOR IMPOSITION OF PENALTY U/S 271 (1) (C) IS THE SATISF ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR AS THE CASE MAY BE DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING ONLY BUT NOT IN ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 274 OF THE A CT. FURTHER THE LD. DR ALSO EMPHASIZED THAT THE REQUIREMENT OF ISSUE OF NO TICE U/S 274 IS MERELY TO GIVE EFFECT TO THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE BUT NOT A JURISDICTIONAL NECESSITY, AND ANY DEFECT OR IRREGULARITY IN ISSUIN G THE NOTICE U/S 274 CANNOT MAKE THE PROCEEDINGS VOID AB INITIO. FURTHE R DISTINCTION HAS TO BE MADE BETWEEN A CASE OF NO NOTICE AND A CASE OF IMPR OPER NOTICE. WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE LD. DR THAT THE JURISDICTIONA L CONDITION FOR IMPOSITION PENALTY STARTS FROM THE SATISFACTION OF THE A SSESSING OFFICER/CIT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OR OTHERWISE, HOWEVER, AS THE SATISFACTION ITSELF IS NOT SUFFICIENT UNT IL AND UNLESS IN FURTHERANCE TO THE SATISFACTION, THE INITIATION OF TH E PENALTY PROCEEDINGS HAVE BEEN MADE AND STATUTORY NOTICE U/S 274 IS BEING ISSU ED. ITA NOS.490 &491/ ASR/19 ITA NO. 520/ASR/ 2017 ITA NOS.505/ASR/2017 8 9.2 WE ARE NOT INFLUENCED BY THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. D R TO THE EFFECT THAT THE REQUIREMENT OF ISSUING NOTICE U/S 274 IS MERELY A FORMALITY TO GIVE EFFECT TO THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE BUT NOT A JURISDICTIONAL NECESSITY. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, SEC.274 PRESCRIBES THAT NO ORDER IMPOSING A PENALTY UNDER THIS CHAPTER SHALL BE MADE UNLESS THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN HEARD, OR HAS BEEN GIV EN REASONABLE OPPORTUNITIES OF BEING HEARD . THE LEGISLATURE HAS USED THE WORD ' SHALL ' THEREFORE, IT IS A MANDATORY FOR THE AUTHORITIES TO G IVE A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD AND FOR THAT OPPORTUNITY , THE CHARGE(S) HAS TO BE CLEAR, THEREFORE, THE ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 274 RE QUIRES TO BE GIVEN WHILE SPECIFYING THE CHARGE(S) THEREIN AND THE N OTICE IS INSTRUMENTAL AND HAVING MAIN ROLE FOR PENALTY PROCEED INGS FOR FAIR PLAY AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITIES OF BEING HEARD. REASONABL E OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD IS BASED UPON PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTI CE WHICH HAS WIDE IMPLICATION AND CANNOT BE GIVEN STRICT INTERPRETA TION. THE PRINCIPLE OF AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM IS THE BASIC CONCEPT OF THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND HAS NOT EVOLVED FROM THE CONSTITUTION BUT EVOLV ED THROUGH CIVILIZATION AND MANKIND AND IS THE CONCEPT OF COMMON LAW, WHICH IMPLIES FAIRNESS, REASONABLENESS, EQUALITY AND EQUITY. IN INDIA, THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE ARE THE GROUNDS OF ARTICLE 14 AND 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION. ARTICLE 14 ENSHRINES THAT EVERY PERSON SHOULD BE TREATED EQUALLY. IN THE LANDMARK CASE OF MANEKA GANDHI VS. THE UNION OF INDIA (1978 AIR 597) , IT HAS BEEN HELD BY CONSTITUTION BENCH OF THE APEX C OURT THAT THE LAW AND PROCEDURE MUST BE OF A FAIR, JUST AND REASO NABLE KIND. THE DOCTRINE ENSURES A FAIR HEARING. 9.3 THE LD. DR ALSO RAISED THE ISSUE THAT A DISTINCTION H AS TO BE MADE BETWEEN A CASE OF NO NOTICE AND A CASE OF IMPROPER NOTICE BECAUSE IN THE FORMER CASE THE PROCEEDING WOULD BE VOID AND IN A CASE ITA NOS.490 &491/ ASR/19 ITA NO. 520/ASR/ 2017 ITA NOS.505/ASR/2017 9 OF THE LATTER, THE PROCEEDINGS WOULD BE MERELY IRREGU LAR, AND IN CASE OF SUCH IRREGULAR PROCEEDINGS, THE TEST OF PREJUDICE HAS TO B E EMPLOYED. IN OUR VIEW, ISSUANCE OF NOTICE WITH SPECIFIC CHARGE IS MUST FOR THE PRINCIPLES OF AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM , NATURAL JUSTICE AND FAIR PLAY THEREFORE IMPROPER NOTICE ALSO HAVING NO VALUE IN THE EYES OF LAW AND CANNOT BE REGULARIZED AND HAVING THE SAME EFFECT AS OF NO NOTICE. IN 'DILIP N. SHROFF VS. JCIT', 291 ITR 519 (SC), IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT IS IN TWO PARTS. WHEREAS THE FIRST PART REFERS TO CONCEALMENT OF INCOME, THE SECOND PART REFERS TO FU RNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS THEREOF. 'CONCEALMENT OF INCOME' AND 'F URNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS' ARE DIFFERENT . IN 'ASHOK PAI VS. CIT ', 292 ITR 11 (SC), THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT CONCEALMENT OF INCOME' AND 'FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS' CARRY DIFFER ENT CONNOTATIONS. 9.4 THE LD. DR FURTHER ARGUED THAT VIOLATION OF EACH AN D EVERY PROCEDURAL PROVISION CANNOT AUTOMATICALLY VITIATE THE PROCEEDINGS OR THE ORDER AND THE PARTICIPATION BY THE ASSESSEE DURING T HE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS, IRREGULAR IF ANY CAN VALIDATE THE PROCEED INGS. THE LD. DR ALSO REFERRED THE JUDGMENTS RENDERED BY PATNA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE CIT VS. MITHILA MOTORS (PVT.) LTD. 149 ITR 75 (PAT.) AND MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SUNDARAM FINANCE LTD. VS. ASST CIT [2018] 93 TAXMANN.COM 250 (SC). THE LD. DR FURTHER ARGUED THAT IF THE CHARGE IS DISCERNIBLE FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THEN IT IS IMMAT ERIAL WHETHER THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 274 FAILS TO MENTION THE CORRECT CHA RGE. THE LD. DR FURTHER ARGUED THAT THE MINOR DEFECTS IN THE NOTICE NEED TO BE IGNORED U/S 292B OF THE ACT AS PER THE JUDGMENTS DELI VERED BY HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PR. CIT, KANPUT VS. SH. SANDEEP CHANDAK [2018] 93 TAXMANN.COM 405 (ALL.) . WE REALIZE THAT ITA NOS.490 &491/ ASR/19 ITA NO. 520/ASR/ 2017 ITA NOS.505/ASR/2017 10 HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA IN THE CASE OF MANJUNATHA COTT ON & GINNING FACTORY [2013] MANDATES FOR ISSUING THE NOTICE U/S 274 OF THE ACT WHILE SPECIFYING THE GROUND(S)/CHARGE(S) WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS TO MEET SPECIFICALLY. FURTHER HELD THAT OTHERWISE PRINCIPL E OF NATURAL JUSTICE IS OFFENDED, IF SHOW CAUSE NOTICE IS VAGUE AND ON THE BASIS OF SUCH PROCEEDINGS, NO PENALTY CAN BE LEVIED ON THE ASSESSEE. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE LD. DR THAT PARTICIPATION BY THE ASSESSE DURING THE COURSE OF PROCEEDIN GS, CURES THE IRREGULARITIES AND MINOR DEFECTS IN THE NOTICE NEED S TO BE IGNORED U/S 292B OF THE ACT IS DEVOID OF MERITS AS THE HONBLE K ARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY (SUPRA) HAS CLEARLY LAID DOWN THE LAW THAT IT IS TO BE KEPT IN MIND THAT SECTION 271(1)(C) IS A PENAL PROVISION AND SUCH A PROVISION HAS TO B E STRICTLY CONSTRUCTED . THE HON'BLE COURT FURTHER HELD THAT 'NOTICE UNDER SECTION 274 SHOULD SPECIFICALLY STATE THE GROUNDS MENTIONED IN SECTION 271(1)(C) , I.E., WHETHER IT IS FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FOR FURN ISHING OF INCORRECT PARTICULARS OF INCOME. SENDING PRINTED FORM, WHERE ALL THE GROUNDS MENTIONED IN SECTION 271 ARE MENTIONED, WOULD NOT SATISFY REQUIREMENT OF LAW. 35. IT HAS FURTHER BEEN HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD KNOW THE GROUNDS WHICH HE HAS TO MEET SPECIFICALLY. OTHERWIS E, PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE ARE OFFENDED. ON THE BASIS OF SUCH PROCEEDI NGS, NO PENALTY COULD BE IMPOSED ON THE ASSESSEE. TAKING UP OF PENALTY PROCE EDINGS ON ONE LIMB AND FINDING THE ASSESSEE GUILTY OF ANOTHER LIMB IS BAD IN LAW. THE DICTUM LAID DOWN IN MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY ( SUPRA) IS NOT ONLY APPROVED BY THE SAME HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SSA S EMERALD MEADOWS { (2016) 73 TAXMANN.COM 248} BUT ALSO BY THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE VERSUS M/S. SSA'S EMERALD MEADOWS, (2016) 73 TAXMANN.COM 248(SC) WHEREIN THE ITA NOS.490 &491/ ASR/19 ITA NO. 520/ASR/ 2017 ITA NOS.505/ASR/2017 11 HON'BLE COURT DISMISSED THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE JUDGMENT PASSED IN THE CASE OF M/S. SSA'S EMERALD MEADOWS (SUPRA) , WHEREBY IDENTICAL ISSUE WAS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. OPERATIVE PART OF THE DECISION M ADE IN THE CASE OF M/S. SSA'S EMERALD MEADOWS (SUPRA), BY HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA IS REPRODUCED BELOW :- '2. THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED RAISING THE FOLLOWING SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW: (1) WHETHER, OMISSION IF ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXPLICITLY MENTION THAT PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE BEING INITIATED FOR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OR THAT FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME MAKES THE PENALTY ORDER LIABLE FOR CANCELLATION EVEN WHEN IT HAS BEEN PROVED BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CONCEALED INCOME IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE? (2 WHETHER, ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE TRIBUNAL WAS JUSTIFI ED IN LAW IN. HOLDING THAT THE PENALTY NOTICE UNDER SECTION 274 R.W.S. 271(1)(C) IS HAD IN LAW AND. INVALID INSPITE THE AMENDMENT OF SECTION 271(1 B) WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT AND BY VIRTUE OF THE AMENDMENT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS INITIATED THE PENALTY BY PROPERLY RECORDING THE SATISFACTION FOR THE SAME? (3) WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE, THE TRIBUNAL WAS JUSTIFIED IN DECIDING TH E APPEALS AGAINST THE REVENUE ON THE BASIS OF NOTICE ISSUED, UNDER SECTION 274 WITHOUT TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS SPECIFIED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CONCEALED PARTICULARS OF INCOME? 3. 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 ITA NOS.490 &491/ ASR/19 ITA NO. 520/ASR/ 2017 ITA NOS.505/ASR/2017 12 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 THE DECISION OF THE DIVISION BENCH OF THIS COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OR INCOME T AX - VS - MANJUNATHA C OTTON AND G INNING F ACTORY (2013) 359 ITR 565 . 4. IN OUR VIEW, 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 IN THIS APPEAL FOR DETERMINATION BY THIS COURT, THE APPEAL IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED.' 9.5 KERALA HIGH COURT IN 'N.N. SUBRAMANIA IYER VS. UOI ', 97 ITR 228 (KER) HAS HELD 'THE PENALTY NOTICE, EXHIBIT P-2, IS ILLEGAL ON THE FACE OF IT. IT IS IN A PRINTED FORM, WHICH COMPREHENDS ALL POSSIBL E GROUNDS ON WHICH A PENALTY CAN BE IMPOSED UNDER SECTION 18(1) OF THE W EALTH-TAX ACT. THE NOTICE HAS NOT STRUCK OFF ANY ONE OF THOSE GROUNDS, AND THERE IS NO INDICATION FOR WHAT CONTRAVENTION THE PETITIONER WA S CALLED UPON TO SHOW CAUSE WHY A PENALTY SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED. EVEN IN THE COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT, HE HAS NOT STATED F OR WHAT SPECIFIC VIOLATION HE ISSUED IT. IT IS NOT THAT IT WOULD HAV E SAVED HIS ACTION. APPARENTLY, EXHIBIT P-2 IS A WHIMSICAL NOTICE ISSUE D TO AN ASSESSEE WITHOUT INTENDING ANYTHING.' 9.6 EVEN THE ILLEGALITY IN THE NOTICE CANNOT BE SAVED BY REC OURSE TO SECTION 292BB OF THE ACT, AS HELD BY THE ITAT, MUMBAI BENCH IN T HE CASE OF ' SARITA MILIND DAVARE VS. ACIT', ITA NO . 2187/MUM/2014, WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT ITA NOS.490 &491/ ASR/19 ITA NO. 520/ASR/ 2017 ITA NOS.505/ASR/2017 13 SECTION 292BB WOULD NOT COME TO THE RESCUE OF THE R EVENUE WHEN THE NOTICE WAS NOT IN SUBSTANCE AND IN CONFORMITY WITH, OR ACCORDING TO THE INTENT OF THE ACT. 9.7 THE LD. DR AT LAST SUBMITTED THAT RULES OF PROCEDURE A RE THE HANDMAID OF JUSTICE TO ADVANCE THE CAUSE OF JUSTICE BUT N OT TO OBSTRUCT IT AND MANJUNATHA COTTON CASE (SUPRA) CANNOT BE CONSIDER ED TO BE BINDING PRECEDENT. AS IT IS TRITE THAT OBITER DICTA, PER INCURIAM, SUB SILENTIO (WHEN A PARTICULAR POINT OF LAW INVOLVED IN THE DECISION IS NOT PERCEIVED BY THE COURT OR PRESENT TO ITS MIND THAT IS WITHOUT ARGUMENT, WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE RULE AND WITHOUT CITATION O F ANY AUTHORITY) ARE THE EXCEPTIONS TO THE DOCTRINE OF BINDING PRECEDENTS. P ER INCURIAM ARE THOSE DECISIONS GIVEN IN IGNORANCE FOR FORGETFULNESS OF SOM E STATUTORY PROVISIONS OR SOME AUTHORITY BINDING ON THE COURT CONCER NED. THE LD. DR FURTHER ARGUED THAT IN THE MANJUNATHA COTTON CASE (SUPRA) THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAVE DECIDED MULTIPLE APPEALS HAVING DIFFERENT ISSUES AND HAVE NOT LAID DOWN A SPECIFIC LAW BUT WRITTE N A SORT OF ESSAY COVERING THE PROVISIONS. UNFORTUNATELY, THEY HAVE JUST GIVEN THEIR OPINION ON VARIOUS ISSUES WITHOUT REFERRING TO THE OTHE R AUTHORITIES ON THE SAME ISSUES. THE DECISION IS KIND OF MONOLOGUE WHICH D OES NOT REFER TO THE ARGUMENTS RAISED BY THE REVENUE OR OTHER PARTIES. IT ALSO IGNORES THE ESTABLISHED PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN BY THE HON BLE APEX COURT WITH REGARD TO THE DOCTRINE OF PREJUDICE. IT ALSO HAS N OT REFERRED TO THE RULES OF AN INTERPRETATION LAID DOWN BY THE APEX COU RT. THUS, THE DECISION GIVEN IS THE SUB SILENTIO AND IS ALSO PER INCURIAM. IN OUR THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION, WE ARE NOT CONVINCED B Y THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. DR AS WE REALIZE THAT THE HONBL E HIGH COURT IN ITA NOS.490 &491/ ASR/19 ITA NO. 520/ASR/ 2017 ITA NOS.505/ASR/2017 14 MANJUNATHA COTTON CASE (SUPRA) EXTENSIVELY DEALT WITH V ARIOUS SITUATIONS AND PARAMETERS QUA PENALTY PROCEEDINGS AND L AID DOWN THE DICTUM, WHICH WAS NOT ONLY SCRUTINIZED AND TESTED BY VAR IOUS HIGH COURTS BUT ALSO BY THE APEX COURT IN THE M/S SSA,S EMER ALD MEDOWS CASE (SUPRA). THEREFORE IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE DECISI ON IS KIND OF MONOLOGUE AND AGAINST THE ESTABLISHED PRINCIPLES OF LAW LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE APEX COURT QUA DOCTRINE OF PREJUDICE. EVEN OTHERWISE WE DO NOT HAVE ANY JURISDICTION TO ACT AGAINST ANY JUDGME NT OF THE HIGHER COURTS AND TO DECLARE ANY JUDGMENT AS PER IN-CURIAM AS DESIRED BY THE LD. CIT DR THOUGH WRITTEN SYNOPSIS. 9.8 THOUGH, WE HAVE GONE THROUGH ALL THE JUDGMENTS REF ERRED BY THE LD. CIT- DR AND LD. A. R. AND FOUND SOME OF THEM DISTINGUISHABLE ON FACTS AND NOT APPLICABLE TO THE INSTANT CASES, HOWEVER WE HAVE REFERRED FEW RELEVANT JUDGMENTS ONLY FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY AND JUST DECISION OF THIS CASE . 9.9 NO DOUBT THERE ARE JUDGMENTS ON BOTH SIDE QUA VALIDI TY OF NOTICE AND ITS EFFECTS ON THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS, HOWEVER, AS PER DECISION HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. VEGETABLE PRODUCTS 88 ITR 192 , WHEREIN THE HON'BLE COURT LAID DOWN THE PROPOSITION TO THE EFFECTS ' WHENEVER THERE ARE TWO REASONABLE CONSTRUCTIONS OF A TAXING PROVISION ARE POSSIBLE THAT CONSTRUCTION WHICH FAVO URS THE ASSESSEE MUST BE ADOPTED'. HENCE CONSIDERING THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE INSTANT APPEAL IS IDENTICAL TO THE ISS UE DECIDED BY THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY CASE (SUPRA), M/S SSAS EMERALD MEDOWS (SU PRA) AND BY THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S SSAS EMERALD MED OWS (SUPRA), ITA NOS.490 &491/ ASR/19 ITA NO. 520/ASR/ 2017 ITA NOS.505/ASR/2017 15 WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT ONCE A NOTICE U/S 274 IS DEFECTIVE OR NOT CLARIFYING THE CHARGE/CHARGES SPECIFICAL LY THEN IT SHALL VITIATE THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS AND NO PENALTY CAN SUSTA IN IN THAT EVENTUALITY BECAUSE EVEN SECTION 464, 465 AND 215 OF T HE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973 MANDATES THAT ' NO FINDING SENTENCE OR ORDER BY A COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION SHALL BE DEEMED I NVALID MERELY ON THE GROUND THAT NO CHARGE WAS FRAMED OR ON THE GROUND O F ANY ERROR, OMISSION OR IRREGULARITY IN THE CHARGE INCLUDING AN Y MISJOINDER OF CHARGE, UNLESS, IN THE OPINION OF THE COURT OF APPEAL, CONFIRMATION OR REVISION, A FAILURE OF JUSTICE HAS IN FACT BEEN OCCASIONED THEREBY .' IT IS THE WISDOM OF THE COURT CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE THAT IF NO VALID CHARG E HAS BEEN FRAMED AGAINST THE ACCUSED IN RESPECT OF THE OFFENCES, IT SH ALL QUASH THE CONVICTION AS PER CRIMINAL LAW. IN OUR VIEW AS PE R SECTION 274 THE REASONABLE OPPORTUNITIES OF BEING HEARD IS MANDATORY F OR IMPOSING A PENALTY, THEREFORE, THE SPECIFIC CHARGE ALSO NECESSITATE AN D IMPERATIVE FOR FASTENING THE LIABILITY AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE IT ALSO CULMINATE INTO THE CRIMINAL PROSECUTION ULTIMATELY, THE REFORE, HAVING THE NATURE OF QUASI- CRIMINAL. SECTION 215 OF CR. P. C. MANDATES NO ERROR IN STATING EITHER THE OFFENCE OR THE PARTICUL ARS REQUIRED TO BE STATED IN THE CHARGE, AND NO OMISSION TO STATE THE OFFENCE OR THO SE PARTICULARS, SHALL BE REGARDED AT ANY STAGE OF THE CASE AS MATERIAL, UNLESS THE ACCUSED WAS IN FACT MISLED BY SUCH ERROR OR OMISSION, AND IT HAS OCCASIONED A FAILURE OF JUSTICE . WHEN THE NOTICE HAS BEEN ISSUED WITHOUT SPECIFYING ANY CHARGE THEN CERTAIN LY THE DOUBT GOES IN THE MINDS OF THE ASSESSEE AS HE CANNOT BE SURE TO RE PLY AS TO WHAT CHARGE HE IS BEING PROSECUTED OR SUPPOSED TO DEFEND, HENCE IN ITA NOS.490 &491/ ASR/19 ITA NO. 520/ASR/ 2017 ITA NOS.505/ASR/2017 16 THAT EVENTUALITY, IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW THE SITUATION WILL AMOUNTS TO MISLEADING BY SUCH ERROR OR OMISSION, AND WOULD OCCASION ED A FAILURE OF JUSTICE. 9.10 IN OVER FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND ANALYZATION, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE PENALTY PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2 71(1)(C) OF THE ACT ARE ATTRACTED WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS CONCEALED THE PART ICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME. I T IS ALSO A WELL-ACCEPTED PROPOSITION THAT THE AFORESAID TWO LIMBS OF SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT CARRY DIFFERENT MEANINGS. THEREFO RE, IT IS IMPERATIVE FOR THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO STRIKE - OFF THE IRRELEVANT LIMB SO AS TO MAKE THE ASSESSEE AWARE AS TO WHAT IS THE CHARGE MADE AGAINST HIM SO THAT HE CAN RESPOND ACCORDINGLY. THE HON'B LE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MANJUNATHA COTTON & GINNING FACTORY, 359 ITR 565 (KAR) OBSERVED THAT THE LEVY OF PENALTY HAS TO BE CLEAR AS TO THE LIMB UNDER WHICH IT IS BEING LEVIED. AS PER HON'BLE HIGH COURT, WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER PROPOSED TO INVOKE FIR ST LIMB BEING CONCEALMENT, THEN THE NOTICE HAS TO BE APPROPRIATELY MA RKED. THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT HELD THAT THE STANDARD PROFORMA OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 274 OF THE ACT WITHOUT STRIKING OF THE IRRELEVA NT CLAUSES WOULD LEAD TO AN INFERENCE OF NON-APPLICATION OF MIND BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER. THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF DILIP N. SHROFF VS. JCIT, 291 ITR 519(SC) HAS ALSO NOTICED THAT WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUES NOTICE UNDER SECTION 274 OF THE ACT IN THE STANDARD PROFORMA AND THE INAPPROPRIATE WORDS ARE NOT DELETED , THE SAME WOULD POSTULATE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT SURE AS TO WH ETHER HE WAS TO PROCEED ON THE BASIS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICUL ARS OF INCOME. ITA NOS.490 &491/ ASR/19 ITA NO. 520/ASR/ 2017 ITA NOS.505/ASR/2017 17 ACCORDING TO THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT, IN SUCH A SITUA TION, LEVY OF PENALTY SUFFERS FROM NON-APPLICATION OF MIND. 9.11 IN THE BACKGROUND OF THE AFORESAID LEGAL POSITION AND, HAVING REGARD TO THE MANNER IN WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ISSUED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 274 R.W.S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT DATED 27.0 3.2015 WITHOUT STRIKING OFF THE IRRELEVANT WORDS, APPARENTL Y GOES TO PROVE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER INITIATED THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS B Y ISSUING THE NOTICE U/S 274/271(1)(C) OF THE ACT WITHOUT SPECIFYING WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAS CONCEALED ''PARTICULARS OF INCOME' OR ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED 'INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME', SO AS TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE SHOW CAUSE NOTI CE. RATHER NOTICE IN THIS CASE HAS BEEN ISSUED IN A STEREOTYPED MANNE R WITHOUT APPLYING MIND WHICH IS BAD IN LAW, HENCE CAN NOT BE CON SIDERED A VALID NOTICE SUFFICIENT TO IMPOSE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. EVEN THE A.O. WHILE RECORDING THE SATISFACTION WHEREIN HAS RECODE D THE SATISFACTION ON BOTH OF THE LIMBS AND ISSUED THE NOTICE U NDER SECTION 274 OF THE ACT WITHOUT SPECIFYING THE LIMB AND FINALLY IMPOSED THE PENALTY ON ONE LIMB, WHICH ONLY GOES TO SHOW THE HE WA S UNCERTAIN AND CONFUSE FOR INITIATING THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS AND ISSUING THE NOTICE AND WHILE LEVYING OF PENALTY, THEREFORE IN CU MULATIVE EFFECTS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE PE NALTY IS NOT LEVIABLE AS HELD BY THE VARIOUS COURTS INCLUDING APEX COURT AND HENCE, WE HAVE NO HESITATION TO DELETE THE PENALTY LEVIED B Y THE AO AND AFFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A). CONSEQUENTLY THE ORDER U NDER CHALLENGE CANNOT SUSTAIN AND LIABLE TO BE SET ASIDE AND HENCE THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSEEEE IS ALLOWED. ITA NOS.490 &491/ ASR/19 ITA NO. 520/ASR/ 2017 ITA NOS.505/ASR/2017 18 10. AS WE HAVE DECIDED THE LEGAL GROUND AND DELETED T HE PENALTY, THEREFORE NOT ADVERTING TO THE MERITS OF THE CASE, BECA USE THE SAME SHALL BECOME ACADEMIC AND FUTILE EXERCISE ONLY. 11. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS UNDER CONSIDERATION FI LED BY THE ASSESSEES STAND ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 18/0 2/2020. SD/- SD/- (DR. A.L.SAINI) (N.K.CHOUDHRY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIA L MEMBER DATED: 18/02/2020. /PK/ PS. COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANTS 2. THE RESPONDENTS 3. THE CIT,S 4. THEN CIT,S (APPEALS) 5. SR. DR, I.T.A.T. AMRITSAR 6. CIT DR, I.T.A.T. AMRITSAR 7. GUARD FILE TRUE COPY BY ORDER