SAPNA N. JHAVERI, MUMBAI V. ITO 19 (3) (2), MUMBAI

ITA 5017/MUM/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 112 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0950 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-12-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 30-08-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Set aside
• Section: 271(1)(c); 142(1); 201; 274; 143(2); 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL G BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR , AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM / I .T.A. NO. 5017 /MUM/20 1 8 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009 - 10 ) SAPNA N. JHAVERI 1202, 12 TH FLOOR, VEENA APAR TMENT, 198, WALKESHWAR ROAD, NEAR TEEN BATTI, MUMBAI - 400006 . / VS. ITO - 19(3)(2) MATRU MANDIR, MUMBAI - 400007. ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AIIPJ4271G ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / DATE OF HEARING : 04 /1 2 / 201 9 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 06 /1 2 / 2019 / O R D E R PER AMARJIT SIN GH, J M: THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 29 . 0 5 .201 8 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 30 , MUMBAI [HEREINAFTE R REFERRED TO AS THE CIT(A)] RELEVANT TO THE A.Y. 2009 - 10 IN WHICH THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE AO HAS BEEN ORDER ED TO BE CONFIRMED . 2 . THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: - 1 ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE PENALTY LEVIED OF RS.3,00,300/ - U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE I. T. ACT, 1961, BY LD. ASSESSING OFFICER . ASSESSEE BY : SHRI VIMAL PUNMIYA REVENUE BY: SHRI V. VINOD KUMAR (SR. AR ) ITA. NO . 5017 /M/201 8 A.Y. 200 9 - 10 2 2. THE ASSESSEE CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER OR AMEND THE ABOVE GROUND OF APPEAL ON OR BEFORE THE DATE OF HEARING . 3 . THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE DIDNT FILE THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE A.Y. 2009 - 10. SUBSEQUENT LY, AN INFORMATION WAS RECEIVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEPOSITED AN AMOUNT OF RS.10,34,600/ - IN CASH IN HER SAVING BANK A/C DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2008 - 09 RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YE AR 2009 - 10 AND SOURCE THEREOF WAS REMA INED UNEXPLAINED. NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON 30.03.2014 . NOTICE S U/S 143(2) & 142(1) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED AND SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSMENT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS COMPLETED ASSESSING THE INCOME TO THE TUNE OF RS.10,34,600/ - . THEREAFTER, PENALTY PROCEEDING WA S INITIATED AND AFTER THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE, THE PENALTY IN SUM OF RS.3,00,300/ - WAS IMPOSED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. FEELING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) WHO DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE , THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE H AS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE US. 5 . WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENT ADVANCED BY THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECO R D. AT THE VERY OUTSET, THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE HAS ARGUED THAT THE PENALTY NOTICE NOWHERE SPEAKS ABO UT SPECIFIC LIMB TO LEVY THE PENALTY BECAUSE THE PARTICULAR CHARGE WAS NOT TICK OFF IN THE NOTICE, THEREFORE, IN THE SAID CIRCUMSTANCES , THE PENALTY IS NOT JUSTIFIABLE HENCE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) CONFIRMING THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE AO IS WRONG AGAINST L AW AND FACTS AND IS LIABLE TO BE SET ASIDE. IN SUPPORT OF THESE ITA. NO . 5017 /M/201 8 A.Y. 200 9 - 10 3 CONTENTIONS THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED RELIANCE 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 IN ITA. NO.2555/M/2012 VIDE ORDER DATED 28.04.2017 TITLED AS MEHERJEE CASSINATH HOLDINGS P. LTD. VS. ACIT, CIRCLE - 4(2). HOWEVER, ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT HAS REFUTED THE SAID CONTENTI ONS. THE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 24 . 0 7 .201 4 IS ON THE FILE IN WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOWHERE SPECIFY ANY LIMB TO LEVY THE PENALTY BECAUSE NONE OF THE CHARGE WAS TICK OFF IN THE NOTICE. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE PENALTY U/S 271(C) OF THE ACT IS LEVIABLE ON ACCOUNT OF THE CONCEALME NT OF PARTICUL AR OF INCOME AND ON ACCOUNT OF FURNISHING THE INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. BOTH HAVE DIFFERENT CONNOTATIONS. IN THIS REGARD, THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAS APPRECIATED THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN BOTH THE LIMB IN THE CASE DILIP N. SHROFF 161 TAXMAN 218 (SC). AS PER THE RECORD, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER SPEAKS ABOUT LEVYING THE PENALTY ON ACCOUNT OF FURNISHING THE INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME BUT THE NOTICE NOWHERE SPECIFY ANY LIMB TO LEVY THE PENALTY. THE NOTICE IS NOT JUSTIFIABLE IN VIEW OF TH E LAW SETTLED BY THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT - 11 VS. SAMSON PERINCHERY . AT THE TIME OF ARGUMENT, THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO PLACED RELIANCE UPON THE FINDING OF THE HONBLE ITAT IN ITA. NO. 2555/M/2012 TITLED AS MEHERJEE CAS SINATH HOLDINGS P. LTD. VS. ACIT, CIRCLE - 4(2). THE RELEVANT PARA IS HEREBY REPRODUCED BELOW: - ITA. NO . 5017 /M/201 8 A.Y. 200 9 - 10 4 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, I N THE COURSE OF ANY PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE ACT, HE IS SATISFIED THAT ANY PERSON HAS CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME. IN OTHER WORDS, WHAT SEC. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT POSTULATES IS THAT THE PENALTY CA N BE LEVIED ON THE EXISTENCE OF ANY OF THE TWO SITUATIONS, NAMELY, FOR CONCEALING THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. 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 PARTICULARS 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 CASE 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 IS IMPERATIVE 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 THE 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 REPRESENTATIVE 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 THE NOTICE HAS BEEN SOUGHT TO BE DEMONSTRATED AS A REFLECTION OF NON - APPLICATION OF MIND BY THE ASSE SSING 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. SHROFF (SUPRA): - ITA. NO . 5017 /M/201 8 A.Y. 200 9 - 10 5 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 DONE. 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 PLACING THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT LAID EMPHASIS THAT HE HAD DEALT WITH BOTH THE SITUATIONS. 84. THE IMPUGN ED ORDER, THEREFORE, SUFFERS FROM NON - APPLICATION OF MIND. IT WAS ALSO BOUND TO COMPLY WITH THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. (SEE MALABAR INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD. V. CIT [2000] 2 SCC 718] 9. FACTUALLY SPEAKING, THE AFORESAID PLEA OF ASSESSEE IS BORNE OUT O F 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 INSTANT CASE DOES SUFFER FROM THE VICE OF NON - APPLICATION OF MIND BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN FACT, A S IMILAR 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 PENALTY 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 THE 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. ITA. NO . 5017 /M/201 8 A.Y. 200 9 - 10 6 SINCE THE FACTUAL MATRIX IN THE PRESENT CASE CONFORMS TO THE PROPOSITION LAID DOWN 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'BLE 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 NOT 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 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 PROCESSORS, 306 ITR 277 (SC) DEDUCED AS UNDER : - 12. A COMBINED READING OF THE DECISION RENDERED BY HONBL E 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 (SUPRA) WOULD MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THERE SHOULD BE APPLICATION OF MIND ON THE PART OF THE AO AT THE TIME O F ISSUING NOTICE. IN THE CASE OF LAKHDIR LALJI (SUPR A), THE AO ISSUED NOTICE U/S 274 FOR CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME BUT LEVIED PENALTY FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT QUASHED THE PENALTY SINCE THE B ASIS 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 PENALTY IMPOSED IN THE CASE OF N.N.SUBRAMANIA IYER VS. UNION OF INDIA (SUPRA), WHEN THERE IS NO INDICAT ION IN THE NOTICE FOR WHAT CONTRAVENTION THE PETITIONER WAS CALLED UPON TO SHOW CAUSE WHY A PENALTY SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED. IN ITA. NO . 5017 /M/201 8 A.Y. 200 9 - 10 7 THE INSTANT CASE, THE AO DID NOT SPECIFY THE CHARGE FOR WHICH PENALTY PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED AND FURTHER HE HAS ISSUED A NOTIC E 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 THE 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 ISSUED. THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HAS DISCUSSED ABOUT NON - APPLICATION OF MIND IN THE CASE OF KAUSHALY A (SUPRA) AND OBSERVED AS UNDER: - ....THE NOTICE CLEARLY DEMONSTRATED NON - APPLICATION OF MIND ON THE PART OF THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER. THE VAGUENESS AND AMBIGUITY IN THE NOTICE HAD ALSO PREJUDICED THE RIGHT OF REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF TH E 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 - 68 SEEMS TO BE FULLY JUSTIFIED. 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 OUR 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. S ARITA 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 I RRELEVANT CLAUSE IN THE NOTICE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. AS NOTED EARLIER, IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 10.12.2010 THE ASSESSING OFFICER RECORDS THAT THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT ARE TO BE INITIATED FOR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTIC ULARS OF INCOME. HOWEVER, IN THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 274 R.W.S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT OF EVEN DATE, BOTH ITA. NO . 5017 /M/201 8 A.Y. 200 9 - 10 8 THE LIMBS OF SEC. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT ARE REPRODUCED IN THE PROFORMA NOTICE AND THE IRRELEVANT CLAUSE HAS NOT BEEN STRUCK - OFF. QUITE CLEARLY, THE OBSER VATION 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 THE PART OF ASSESSING OFFICER AND THERE IS NO CLEAR AND CRYSTALLISED CHARGE BEING CONVEYED TO THE ASSES SEE 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 PROCEEDINGS 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 RESPON D. 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 RA TIO 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 CASE 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 ARE NOT BEING DEALT WITH. 6. SINCE THE NOTICE WAS NOWHERE TICK OFF BY THE AO TO SPECIFY THE LIMB TO LE VY THE PENALTY, THEREFORE, THE PENALTY IS NOT LIABLE TO BE SUSTAINABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW, THEREFORE, WE SET ASIDE THE FINDING OF THE CIT(A) ON THESE ISSUES AND DELETE THE PENALTY. ITA. NO . 5017 /M/201 8 A.Y. 200 9 - 10 9 7 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS HEREBY ORDERED TO BE ALLOWED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 06 /12 / 2019 . SD/ - SD/ - ( RAJESH KUMAR ) (AMARJIT SINGH) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED : 06 /12 / 2019 V IJAY PAL SINGH /SR. PS / 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