GIRIRAJ SPECIALITY PVT. LTD., MUMBAI V. ITO - 9 (3) (4), MUMBAI

ITA 6127/MUM/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3973 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-10-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 14-10-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Depreciation; Principle of natural justice; Revised return
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL H BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B. R. BASKARAN , AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM / I .T.A. NO. 6127 / MUM/ 20 1 6 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012 - 13 ) M/S. GIRIRAJ SPECIALITY P LTD 4, RAMBHA, DADABHAI ROAD VILE PARLE (W) MUMBAI - 400056 . / VS. ITO - 9(3)(4) MUMBAI ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AAECG 0215 G ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / DATE OF HEARING : 30 . 10 .201 8 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31. 10. 2018 / O R D E R PER AMARJIT SINGH, J M: THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL AG AINST THE ORDER DATED 18 . 07 .201 6 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 16 , MUMBAI [HEREINAFTE R REFERRED TO AS THE CIT(A)] RELEVANT TO THE A.Y. 2012 - 13 WHERE IN THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE AO HAS BEEN ORDERED TO BE CONFIRMED . 2 . THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: - 1 ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELLANTS CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE LD. AO ACTION IN LEVYING PENALTY OF RS.7,68,348/ - BY INVOKING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE IT ACT, 1961 A S PER THE GROUNDS STATED IN THE ORDER OR OTHERWISE. ASSESSEE BY : SHRI NEELKANTH KHANDELWAL (AR) REVENUE BY: SHRI MANOJ KU MAR SINGH (DR) ITA. NO.6127 /M/201 6 A.Y. 20 1 2 - 13 2 2. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVES TO ALTER, AMEND, WITHDRAW OR SUBSTITUTE ANY GROUND OR GROUNDS OR TO ADD ANY NEW GROUND OR GROUNDS OF APPEAL ON OR BEFORE THE HEARING. 3 . THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE TH AT THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETUR N OF I NCOME FOR THE A.Y. 2012 - 13 ON 25.09.2012 DECLARING TOTAL LOSS TO THE TUNE OF RS.24,87,348/ - . THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT WAS PASSED ON 25.09.2014 DETERMINING TOTAL INCOME TO THE TUNE OF RS.NIL. THE ADDITION WAS MADE TO THE TUNE OF RS. 24,87,348/ - ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES. ON VERIFICATION, IT WAS FOUND T HAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT CARRY OUT THE BUSINESS ACTIVITY BUT THE ASSESSEE CLAIM ED VARIOUS EXPENSES ON ACCOUNT OF EMPLOYEE BENEFIT EXPENSES, FINANCE COST, DEPRECIATION AND AMORTIZATION EXPENSES AND OTHER EXPENSES TOTALING TO THE TUNE OF RS.17,22,975/ - . FURTHER, DURING THE COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME, THE DEPRECIATION AS PER THE COMPANIES ACT AND MISCELLANEOUS EXPE N SES WERE ADDED AND SUBSEQUENTLY CLAIMED DEPRECIATION AS PER IT ACT AND MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES AND WORKED OUT THE TOTAL BUSINESS LOSS TO THE TUNE OF RS.24,87,348/ - . A S IT WAS ALSO NOTICED THAT THE EXPENSES CLAIMED WERE ON ACCOUNT OF WIP OF FACTORY BUILDING , THEREAFTER, THE NOTICE WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSEE FILED THE REVISED RETURN OF INCOME TO THE TUNE OF RS. NIL. THE CLAIM TO THE TUNE OF RS.24,87,348/ - WAS DISALLOWED AND THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ASSESSED AS NIL. THEREAFTER, T HE PENALTY PROCEEDING WAS INITIATED BY ISSUANCE OF NOTICE DATED 09.01.2015 . A FTER THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE, THE PENALTY TO THE TUNE OF RS.7,68,348/ - WAS LEVIED . FEELING AGGRIEVED, ITA. NO.6127 /M/201 6 A.Y. 20 1 2 - 13 3 THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) WHO CONFIRM ED PENALTY , T HEREFORE, 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 RECORD. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE PENALTY U/S 271 (1) (C) OF THE ACT IS LEVIABLE ON ACCOUNT OF THE CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULAR OF INCOME AND ON ACCOUNT OF FURNISHING THE INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. BOTH HAVE DIFFERENT CONNOTATIONS. IN THIS REGARD, THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT H AS APPRECIATED THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN BOTH THE LIMB IN THE CASE DILIP N. SHROFF 161 TAXMAN 218 (SC). AS PER THE RECORD THE PENALTY ORDER SPEAKS ABOUT LEVYING THE PENALTY ON ACCOUNT OF FURNISHING THE INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS INCOME BUT THE NOTICE NOWHERE SPECIFY ANY LIMB TO LEVY THE PEN ALTY. NO LIMB OF ANY KIND WAS PARTICULARLY TICK OFF BEFORE ISSUANCE OF NOTICE. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE AO HAS INITIATED PENALTY FOR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. T HE PENALTY IS NOT JUSTIFIABLE IN VIEW OF THE LAW SETTLED BY THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT - 11 VS. SAMSON PERINCHERY AND THE ORDER OF THE ITAT, MUMBAI BENCH. 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 CASSINATH HOLDINGS P. LTD. VS. ACIT, CIRCLE - 4(2). THE RELEVANT PARA IS HEREBY REPRODUCED BELOW: - ITA. NO.6127 /M/201 6 A.Y. 20 1 2 - 13 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 S PECIFIED 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 PARTICULARS 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 INCOME. THEREFORE, IT IS OBVIOUS FROM THE PHRASEOLOGY OF SEC. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT THAT T HE 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). T HEREFORE, 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 AGA INST 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 2 74 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 PROF ORMA, 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 MIN D 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. SHROFF (SUPRA): - ITA. NO.6127 /M/201 6 A.Y. 20 1 2 - 13 5 83. IT IS OF SOME SIGNIFICANCE THAT IN THE STANDARD PROFORMA USED BY T HE 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. 8 4. 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. LTD. V. CIT [2000] 2 SCC 718] 9. FACTUALLY SPEAKING, THE AFORESAID PLEA OF ASSESSEE I S 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 INSTANT CASE DOES SUFFER FROM THE VICE OF 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 S UPREME 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 OFFIC ER 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.6127 /M/201 6 A.Y. 20 1 2 - 13 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, 1 097 & 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 BOMBA Y 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 CO NSIDERED 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 COUR T 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 RENDE RED 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 (SUPRA) 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 FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT QUASHED THE PENA LTY 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 PENALTY IMPOSED IN THE CASE OF N.N.SUBRAMANIA IYER VS. UNION OF INDIA (SUPRA), WHEN THE RE 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 ITA. NO.6127 /M/201 6 A.Y. 20 1 2 - 13 7 THE INSTANT CASE, THE AO DID NOT SPECIFY THE CHARGE FOR WHICH PENALTY PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED AND FURTHER HE HA S 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 THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED AND ALSO ISSUED AN INCORRECT NOTICE. BOTH THE AC TS 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 KAUSHALYA (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 O PPORTUNITY 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 - 68 SEEMS TO BE FULLY JUSTIFIED. IN THE INSTANT CASE ALSO, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT T HE 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 T HE 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 - S TRIKING 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 THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT ARE TO BE INITIATED FOR FURNISHING OF I NACCURATE PARTICULARS 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.6127 /M/201 6 A.Y. 20 1 2 - 13 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 CL EARLY, 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 THE PART OF ASSESSING OFFICER AND THERE IS NO CLEAR AND CRYSTALLISED CHARGE BEING CONVE YED 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 PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT OUGHT TO COMPLY WITH THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE, AN D 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. 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 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. 5 . WE ALSO TOOK THE NOTE OF THIS FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE FI LED I TS RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT LOSS TO THE TUNE OF RS . 24,87,348/ - . THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND MANDATORY NOTICES WERE ISSUED IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO JUSTIFY HIS CLAIM. AFTER THE RECEIPT OF THE NOTICE THE ASSESSEE F ILED THE REVISED ITA. NO.6127 /M/201 6 A.Y. 20 1 2 - 13 9 RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING TOTAL INCOME TO THE TUNE OF RS NIL. THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME EARLIER BY MISTAKE. WE ALSO NOTICED THAT IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE AO INITIATED THE PENALTY FOR FURN ISHING THE INACCURATE PARTICULARS AND CONCEALING THE TAXABLE INCOME WHEREAS THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF FURNISHING THE INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME WHICH SPEAKS NON APPLICATION OF MIND. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, IT IS QUITE CLEAR THAT THE AO HAS IMPOSED PENALTY WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND AND HENCE PENALTY ORDER CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. ACCORDINGLY , WE SET ASIDE THE FINDING OF THE CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND DELETE THE PENALTY. ACCORD INGLY, THESE ISSUE S ARE BEING DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE REVENUE. 6 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS HEREBY ORDERED TO BE ALLOWED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31. 10 . 201 8 SD/ - SD/ - ( B. R. BASKARAN ) (AMARJIT SINGH) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED : 31. 10. 201 8 VIJAY / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - 4. / CIT ITA. NO.6127 /M/201 6 A.Y. 20 1 2 - 13 10 5. , , / DR, I TAT, MUMBAI 6. / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// / / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI