ACIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI V. ZIAUDDIN A. SIDDIQUE, MUMBAI

ITA 7413/MUM/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8763 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 10 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-10-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 13-07-2017
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 12-12-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: TUFAIL AHMAD KHAN
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Initiation of penalty proceedings
• Section: 143(3); 153A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH G, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D.T. GARASIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS.7413/M/2014 & 7414/M/2014 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2004-05 & 2005-06 ACIT, CC-3(4), CENTRAL RANGE.3, MUMBAI VS. SHRI ZIAUDDIN A SIDDIQUE, 401, ALICE VILLA, OPP. ALMEDIA PARK, ROAD NO.5, BANDRA-(W), MUMBAI-400 050 PAN: AHLPS0554P (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PRESENT FOR: ASSESSEE BY : SHRI RAJESH SANGHVI, A.R. REVENUE BY : SHRI TUFAIL AHMAD KHAN, D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 18.09.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31.10.2017 O R D E R PER D.T. GARASIA , JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE PRESENT APPEALS HAVE BEEN PREFERRED BY THE REV ENUE AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER DATED 19.09.2014 OF THE CO MMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS TH E CIT(A)] RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004-05 & 2005-06. ITA NO.7413/M/2014 (FOR A.Y. 2004-05) 2. THE SHORT FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND THE PROPRIETOR OF ZEARS BUINESS CENTRE. THE ASS ESSEE HAD BEEN FILING THE RETURNS OF INCOME DECLARING INCOME FROM THE BUSINESS ITA NOS.7413/M/2014 & 7414/M/2014 SHRI ZIAUDDIN A SIDDIQUE 2 CENTRE AS INCOME UNDER THE HEAD 'INCOME FROM BUSINES S & PROFESSION'. IN THE ASSESSMENTS COMPLETED UNDER S. 143(3) R.W.S. 153A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 DATED 23.12.2009, T HE ASSESSING OFFICER (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE AO) CONSIDE RED THE RECEIPTS FROM THE BUSINESS CENTRE AS INCOME UNDER THE HEAD ' INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY'. THE AO INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDING S BY ISSUE OF NOTICE UNDER S. 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 196 1. SO ALSO, THE ASSESSEE DECLARED A SUM OF RS.1,22,58,193/- ON ACCO UNT OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS ON SALE OF SHARES OF ELTROL LTD. IN RESPECT OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 A ND A SUM OF RS.25,58,138/- ON ACCOUNT OF LTCG FROM SALE OF SHAR ES OF ELTROL LTD. WITH RESPECT TO THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO ASSES SMENT YEAR 2005-- 06. WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT, THE AO CONSIDER ED THE CLAIM OF LTCG FOR BOTH THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEARS AS U NEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT; AND ACCORDINGLY PENALTY PROCEEDINGS WE RE INITIATED FOR BOTH THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION BY ISSUE OF NOTI CE UNDER S. 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. AFTER GIVING AN OP PORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD, THE AO HAS HELD THAT FOR BOTH THE YEAR S UNDER CONSIDERATION THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME THEREBY WARRANTING PENALTY UNDER S 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT ACCORDINGLY, THE AO HAS IMPOSED PENALTY OF RS.43,48,728/- IN RESPECT OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 AND PENAL TY OF RS.11,85,903/- IN RESPECT OF ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-0 6. 3. MATTER CARRIED TO THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ALLOWED THE APPEALS BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: ITA NOS.7413/M/2014 & 7414/M/2014 SHRI ZIAUDDIN A SIDDIQUE 3 5.7. I HAVE VERY CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE REPORT O F THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH HAS BEEN FORWARDED WITH THE REMARKS OF THE AD DL.CIT. THE REPORT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ONLY MENTIONS FACTS AND DOES NOT TOUCH UPON THE LEGAL GROUND RAISED ADDITIONALLY BY THE APPELLANT. WITH R EGARD TO THE COMMENTS OF THE ADDL. CIT, IT CAN BE SEEN THAT THE COMMENTS OF THE ADDL.CIT IS WITH REFERENCE TO THE STATUTORY SATISFA CTION THAT IS TO BE ARRIVED AT BY AN ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE COURSE OF PROCEEDING S UNDER THE INCOME TAX ACT THUS ENABLING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DIRECT SUCH PERSON TO PAY PENALTY. THIS SATISFACTION IS TO BE ARRIVED AT IN THE COURSE OF A SSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT AND IS TO BE SPELT OUT IN SUCH ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT ORD ER. THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN CIT VS. S.V ANGIDI CHETTIAR 44 ITR 739 SC HAD OBSERVED THAT THE POWER TO IMPOSE PENALTY DEPENDS UPON THE SATISFACTION OF THE ITO IN THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE ACT AND THAT IT CANNOT BE EXE RCISED IF HE IS NOT SATISFIED ABOUT THE EXISTENCE OF CONDITIONS SPECIFI ED, BEFORE THE PROCEEDINGS ARE CONCLUDED. IN OTHER WORDS, IT WAS H ELD BY THE SUPREME COURT THAT MERELY BECAUSE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS HAVE BEEN INITIATED, IT CANNOT BE ASSUMED THAT SUCH A SATISFACTION WAS ARRI VED AT IN THE ABSENCE OF THE SAME BEING SPELT OUT BY THE ORDER OF THE ASS ESSING AUTHORITY. THIS WAS THE LAW PRIOR TO INSERTION OF 271(1B) IN THE INCOME TAX ACT. IT WAS IN HIS CONTEXT THAT THE FINANCE ACT 2008 INSERTED A NEW SECTION(1B ) IN SECTION 271 W.E.F. 1.4.1989 SO AS TO UNAMBIGUOUSLY PROVIDE THAT WHERE ANY AMOUN T IS ADDED OR DISALLOWED IN COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME OR LOSS IN ANY ORDER OF ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT AND THE SAID ORDER CONTA INS A DIRECTION FOR INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS UNDER S. 271( 1)(C), SUCH A DIRECTION SHALL BE DEEMED TO CONSTITUTE SATISFACTIO N FOR INITIATING PENALTY PROCEEDINGS UNDER CLAUSE (C). IT HAS TO BE STATED THAT BY THE VERY NATURE OF THINGS, SATISFACTION INDEED PRECEDES THE ISSUE OF NOTICE AND IT WOULD NOT BE CORRECT TO EQUATE SATISF ACTION WITH THE ACTUAL ISSUE OF NOTICE. THE ISSUE OF NOTICE INDEED IS A CONSEQUENCE OF SATISFACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN THIS C ONTEXT IT IS TO BE MENTIONED HERE THAT THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT, HAS R ECENTLY IN ITS JUDGMENT IN CIT VS. M/S MWP LTD.(ITA NO.332 OF 2007) DATED 26 NOVEMBER 2013 , OBSERVED THAT EVEN AS PER THE AMENDED PROVISION, PHRASES LIKE (A) PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE BEING INIT IATED (B) PENALTY PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) ARE INITIATED S EPARATELY DO NOT COMPLY WITH THE MEANING OF THE WORD 'DIRECTION' IN THE AMENDED PROVISION. BE THAT AS IT MAY, IT IS AFTER THE FORMA TION OF SATISFACTION WHICH IS TO BE DISCUSSED FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OR REASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE ASSESSEE IS SHOW-CAUSED THROUGH THE ISSUE OF NOTICE AS PROVIDED UNDER S. 274 OF THE ACT. THUS THE PENA LTY PROCEEDINGS ARE INITIATED BY ISSUE OF NOTICE, AND IT IS THIS NO TICE UNDER S. 274 WHICH IS THE SUBJECT MATTER OF CHALLENGE. IN VIEW O F THE SAID STATED LEGAL POSITION, I AM UNABLE TO AGREE WITH THE COMME NTS MADE BY THE ADDL.CIT ON THE ADDITIONAL GROUND AS RAISED BY THE APPELLANT. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, THE SUBMISSION OF THE ADDL.CIT THAT THE ADDITIONAL GROUND IS TO BE DISMISSED CANNOT BE ACCE DED TO AS PER LAW. ITA NOS.7413/M/2014 & 7414/M/2014 SHRI ZIAUDDIN A SIDDIQUE 4 5.8 I HAVE GIVEN THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE FA CTS OF THE CASE, THE FINDINGS OF THE 'ASSESSING OFFICER, THE DECISIO N OF THE CIT(A), THE ORDER OF THE ITAT, THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE APPE LLANT AND ALSO THE ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISED. IT IS TRITE THAT PEN ALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE SEPARATE FROM ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THAT CONSI DERATIONS ARISING IN PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE DIFFERENT FROM A SSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE ADDITION MADE IN THE QUANTUM PROCE EDINGS WILL NOT AUTOMATICALLY TRIGGER IMPOSITION OF PENALTY. IN VIE W OF THE ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISED BY THE APPELLANT FOR BOTH THE YEARS U NDER CONSIDERATION, IT HAS TO BE EXAMINED AT THE THRESHO LD, WHETHER THE PROCEDURE UNDER S. 274 AND THE CONDITIONS OF SECTIO N 271(I) WITH REFERENCE TO THE GROUNDS MENTIONED IN SECTION 271(L )(C) HAS BEEN FOLLOWED, I.E. WHETHER THE NOTICE ISSUED IS FOR CON CEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS. I HAVE EXAMINED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFI CER. IN THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT FOR BOTH THE YEARS UNDER CONSID ERATION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ONLY STATED 'PENALTY PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) ARE INITIATED'. THE NOTICE UNDER S. 274 HAS BEEN ISSUED THEREAFTER. THE GROUND RAISED BY THE APPELLANT THAT THE NOTICES ISS UED FOR BOTH THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION DO NOT SPECIFY WHETHER TH E PENALTY IS BEING INITIATED FOR CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF I NCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS IS NOT CONTROV ERTED. IT IS A FACT THAT THE PARTICULAR LIMB IN THE PRINTED NOTICE UNDE R S. 274 HAS NOT BEEN TICKED WITH RESPECT FOR BOTH THE YEARS UNDER C ONSIDERATION, IT IS ALSO AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE DIRECTION IN TH E ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR BOTH THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION ALSO DO NOT SPECIFY WHETHER THE RECORDING OF SATISFACTION IS FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE AP PELLANT CONTENDS THAT FAILURE TO SPECIFY THE SPECIFIC CHARGE IN RESP ECT OF WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS PROPOSED TO BE PENALIZED IS A JURISDICT IONAL DEFECT WHICH CANNOT BE CURED, THE SAME BEING A PRE-CONDITION BEFORE LEVY O F PENALTY, IN THE ABSENCE OF WHICH THERE CAN BE NO PENALTY. FOR THIS PROPOSITION THE APPELLANT PLACES RELIANCE ON AND DRAWS SUPPORT FROM THE ORDER OF THE MUMBAI ITAT IN THE CASE OF SAMSON PERINCHERRY I N ITA NO. 4625/M/2013 TO ITA NO: 4630/M/2013, AS PER ORDER DA TED 11 TH OCTOBER, 2013. IN THE SIX APPEALS UNDER CONSIDERATI ON IN THE CASE OF SAMSON PERINCHERRY, WITHOUT GOING INTO THE MERITS O F THE PENALTY, THE QUESTION CONSIDERED BY THE HON'BLE ITAT WAS WHE THER THE PENALTY WAS VALID, WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS N OT SPECIFIED IF THE NOTICE WAS ISSUED FOR CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULA RS OF INCOME' OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME PART ICULARS OF SUCH INCOME'. ALSO, IT WAS CONSIDERED IN THESE CASES, WH ETHER PENALTY WAS VALID, WHEN IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IT WAS STAT ED THAT PENALTY IS BEING INITIATED FOR 'FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTI CULARS OF INCOME', HOWEVER PENALTY WAS LEVIED FOR 'CONCEALMENT OF INCO ME'. DRAWING SUPPORT FROM THE DECISION OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COU RT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MANJUNATHA COTTON & GINNING FACTORY[2013] 3 5 TAXMANN.COM 250(KAR), THE JUDGMENT OF THE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ITA NOS.7413/M/2014 & 7414/M/2014 SHRI ZIAUDDIN A SIDDIQUE 5 MANU ENGINEERING 122 ITR 306, AND THAT OF THE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF VIRJO MARKETING 171 TAXMANN 156, IT WAS HELD BY THE MUMBAI ITAT THAT THE LEVY OF PENALTY HAS TO BE CLEA R AS TO THE LIMB FOR WHICH IT IS LEVIED AND THE POSITION BEING UNCLE AR, PENALTY IS NOT LEVIABLE. THE TRIBUNAL HAS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESS ING OFFICER IS UNDER OBLIGATION TO SPECIFY WHETHER PENALTY IS TO B E INITIATED FOR 'FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME' OR FOR 'CONCEALMENT OF INCOME'. BORROWING HEAVILY FROM THE LEGAL PROP OSITION AS SET FORTH BY THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE O F MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY(SUPRA) AS REGARDS NOTICE UNDER S. 274, THE MUMBAI [ITAT IN SAMSON PERINCHERRY, HAS HELD AS UNDER: THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS EMPOWERED UNDER THE ACT TO INITIATE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ONCE HE IS SATISFIED IN THE COU RSE OF ANY PROCEEDINGS THAT THERE IS CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF TOTAL INCOME UNDER CLA USE (C). CONCEALMENT, FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF I NCOME ARE DIFFERENT. THUS THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE ISSUIN G NOTICE HAS TO COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT WHETHER IS IT A CASE OF CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR IS IT A CASE OF FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS. THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF ASHOK PAL REPORTED IN 292 ITR 11 AT PAGE 19 HAS HELD THAT CONCEALMENT OF INCOME AND FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME CARRY D IFFERENT CONNOTATIONS. THE GUJRAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MANU ENGINEERING REPORTED IN 122 ITR 306 AND THE DELHI H IGH COURT IN THE CASE OF VIRGO MARKETING REPORTED IN 171 TAXM AN. 156 HAS HELD THAT LEVY OF PENALTY HAS TO BE CLEAR AS TO THE LIMB FOR WHICH IT IS LEVIED AND THE POSITION BEING UNCLEAR P ENALTY IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. THEREFORE, WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER PROPOSES TO INVOKE THE FIRST LIMB BEING CONCEALMENT, THEN TH E NOTICE HAS TO BE APPROPRIATELY MARKED. SIMILAR IS THE CASE FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE ST ANDARD PROFORRNA WITHOUT STRIKING OF THE RELEVANT CLAUSES WILL LEAD TO AN INFERENCE AS TO NON- APPLICATION OF MIND. FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE PENALTY SHOULD BE CLEAR AS THE LIMB FOR WHICH IT IS LEVIED AND THE POSITION BE ING UNCLEAR HERE THE PENALTY IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. THEREFORE, CON SIDERING, THE SAME, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE GROUND RAI SED BY THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE ALLOWED ON TECHNICAL GROUNDS. AC CORDINGLY, ADJUDICATION OF THE PENALTIES ON MERITS BECOME AN A CADEMIC EXERCISE. THEREFORE, THE GROUNDS RAISED IN ALL THE SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS ARE ALLOWED. 5.9 THE MOOT QUESTION TO BE CONSIDERED IS WHETHER P ENALTY IS SUSTAINABLE CONSIDERING THE LEGAL PROPOSITION AS SE T FORTH IN THE PRE- PARAGRAPHS ABOVE. IT IS AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT IN THE LAST PARAGRAPH ITA NOS.7413/M/2014 & 7414/M/2014 SHRI ZIAUDDIN A SIDDIQUE 6 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS UNDER CONSIDERATION IN RES PECT OF ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004-05 AND 2005-06, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ONLY WRITTEN 'PENALTY PROCEEDINGS UNDER S.271(1)(C) ARE INITIATED SEPARATELY'. THE NOTICE UNDER S. 274 ISSUED FOR BOT H THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION HAVE BEEN PERUSED AND IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE PRINTED FORM HAS BEEN SENT WHERE ALL THE GROUNDS HAVE BEEN MENTIONED, WITHOUT SPECIFICALLY STATING WHETHER IT IS FOR CONC EALMENT OF INCOME OR FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS. THESE BEI NG THE UNDISPUTED AND UNCONTROVERTED FACTS, I AM LEFT WITH NO ALTERNA TIVE OTHER THAN TO FOLLOW THE LEGAL PROPOSITION AS LAID DOWN IN THE OR DER OF THE MUMBAI ITAT IN THE CASE OF SAMSON PERINCHERRY, WHEREIN THE ITAT CONSIDERED THE CITED JUDGEMENT OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY, THAT OF THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF ASHOK PAI, THAT OF THE GUJARAT HIGH COU RT IN THE CASE OF MANU ENGINEERING AND THAT OF THE DELHI HIGH COURT I N THE CASE OF VIRGO MARKETING. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSMEN T ORDER, THE NOTICE UNDER S. 274 AND ALSO THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE FOR BOTH THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION, DO NOT SPECIFY THE LIMB FOR WHICH PENALTY IS LEVIED. THE LEGAL POSITION AS PER THE ABOVE CITE D JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENT IS THAT WHEN THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER S. 274 DOES NOT SATISFY THE GROUNDS WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS TO MEET SPECIFICALLY, THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE IS OFFENDED AND NO PEN ALTY CAN BE IMPOSED. THIS BEING THE LEGAL PREPOSITION AND WHEN IT STRIKES AT THE VERY ROOT OF THE PENALTY ORDERS, THE ADJUDICATION O N MERITS BECOMES ACADEMIC. I AM CONSTRAINED TO FOLLOW THE LEGAL PROP OSITION AS LAID DOWN IN THE CITED JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS (SUPRA) E SPECIALLY THAT OF JURISDICTIONAL ITAT, WHICH IS A BINDING PRECEDENT, KEEPING IN VIEW THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT ON TH E SUBJECT OF JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE IN THE CASE OF UNION OF INDIA V S KAMAKSHI FINANCE CORPORATION AIR 1992 SC 711. ON THE ABOVE STATED FA CTS AND THE LEGAL POSITION AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, I AM UNABLE TO S USTAIN THE ORDER OF PENALTY IN RESPECT OF BOTH THE IMPUGNED YEARS, I .E. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 AND ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. THE PENAL TY UNDER S. 271(1)(C) IMPOSED FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 AND A SSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 ARE HEREBY DELETED. IT IS ORDERED ACCO RDINGLY. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE TWO APPEALS FILED IN RESPECT OF ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 AND ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 ARE ALLOWED. 4. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSI ONS. SEC. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT EMPOWERS THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO IMPOSE PE NALTY TO THE EXTENT SPECIFIED IF, IN THE COURSE OF ANY PROCEEDINGS UNDE R THE ACT, HE IS SATISFIED THAT ANY PERSON HAS CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF HIS INC OME OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME. IN OTHER WORDS, WHAT SE C. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT POSTULATES IS THAT THE PENALTY CAN BE LEVIED ON THE EXISTENCE OF ANY OF THE TWO EL ITA NOS.7413/M/2014 & 7414/M/2014 SHRI ZIAUDDIN A SIDDIQUE 7 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 PARTI CULARS OF INCOME AND FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME RE FERRED TO IN SEC. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT DENOTE DIFFERENT CONNOTATIONS. IN FACT, THI S DISTINCTION HAS BEEN APPRECIATED EVEN AT THE LEVEL OF HON'BLE SUPREME CO URT NOT ONLY IN THE CASE OF DILIP N. SHROFF (SUPRA) BUT ALSO IN THE CASE OF T.A SHOK PAI, 292 ITR 11 (SC). THEREFORE, IF THE TWO EXPRESSIONS, NAMELY CONCEALM ENT OF THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS O F 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 DEFE ND ACCORDINGLY. IT IS IN THIS BACKGROUND THAT ONE HAS TO APPRECIATE THE PRELIMINA RY 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 CO MPANY. A COPY OF THE SAID NOTICE HAS BEEN PLACED ON RECORD AND THE LEARNED RE PRESENTATIVE CANVASSED THAT THE SAME HAS BEEN ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER I N A STANDARD PROFORMA, WITHOUT STRIKING OUT THE IRRELEVANT CLAUSE. IN OTHE R 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 INAC CURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. QUITE CLEARLY, NON-STRIKING-OFF OF THE IRRELEVANT L IMB IN THE SAID NOTICE DOES NOT CONVEY TO THE ASSESSEE AS TO WHICH OF THE TWO CHARG ES IT HAS TO RESPOND. THE AFORESAID INFIRMITY IN THE NOTICE HAS BEEN SOUGHT T O BE DEMONSTRATED AS A REFLECTION OF NON-APPLICATION OF MIND BY THE ASSESS ING OFFICER, AND IN SUPPORT, REFERENCE HAS BEEN MADE TO THE FOLLOWING SPECIFIC D ISCUSSION IN THE ORDER OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF DILIP N. SHROF F (SUPRA):- 83. IT IS OF SOME SIGNIFICANCE THAT IN THE STANDAR D PROFORMA USED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN ISSUING A NOTICE DESPITE THE FACT THAT T HE SAME POSTULATES THAT ITA NOS.7413/M/2014 & 7414/M/2014 SHRI ZIAUDDIN A SIDDIQUE 8 INAPPROPRIATE WORDS AND PARAGRAPHS WERE TO BE DELET ED, 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 CONCEA LED HIS INCOME OR HE HAD FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS. EVEN BEFORE US, T HE LEARNED ADDITIONAL SOLICITOR GENERAL WHILE PLACING THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT LAID EMPHASIS THAT HE HAD DEALT WITH BOTH THE SITUATIONS. 84. 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] WE FURTHER FIND THAT AT PARA 9 OF THE ORDER IN REL IANCE PETROPRODUCTS P. LTD. (SUPRA), THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD AS UNDER: 9. THEREFORE, IT IS OBVIOUS THAT IT MUST BE SHOWN THAT THE CONDITIONS UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) MUST EXIST BEFORE THE PENALTY IS IMPOSED. THERE CAN BE NO DISPUTE THAT EVERYTHING WOULD DEPEND UPON THE RETURN FILED BECAU SE THAT IS THE ONLY DOCUMENT, WHERE THE ASSESSEE CAN FURNISH THE PARTICULARS OF H IS INCOME. WHEN SUCH PARTICULARS ARE FOUND TO BE INACCURATE, THE LIABILITY WOULD ARI SE. IN DILIP N. SHROFF V. JOINT CIT [2007] 6 SCC 329****, THIS COURT EXPLAINED THE TERM S 'CONCEALMENT OF INCOME' AND 'FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS'. THE COURT WENT ON TO HOLD THEREIN THAT IN ORDER TO ATTRACT THE PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C), MEN S REA WAS NECESSARY, AS ACCORDING TO THE COURT, THE WORD 'INACCURATE' SIGNI FIED A DELIBERATE ACT OR OMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. IT WENT ON TO HOLD THAT CLAUSE (III) OF SECTION 271(1)(C) PROVIDED FOR A DISCRETIONARY JURISDICTION UPON THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY, INASMUCH AS THE AMOUNT OF PENALTY COULD NOT BE LESS THAN THE AM OUNT OF TAX SOUGHT TO BE EVADED BY REASON OF SUCH CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME, BUT IT MAY NOT EXCEED THREE TIMES THEREOF. IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT THE TERM 'INACCURATE PARTICULARS' WAS NOT DEFINED ANYWHERE IN THE ACT AN D, THEREFORE, IT WAS HELD THAT FURNISHING OF AN ASSESSMENT OF THE VALUE OF THE PRO PERTY MAY NOT BY ITSELF BE FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS. IT WAS FURTHER H ELD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER MUST BE FOUND TO HAVE FAILED TO PROVE THAT HIS EXPLANATI ON IS NOT ONLY NOT BONA FIDE BUT ALL THE FACTS RELATING TO THE SAME AND MATERIAL TO THE COMPUTATION OF HIS INCOME WERE NOT DISCLOSED BY HIM. IT WAS THEN HELD THAT TH E EXPLANATION MUST BE PRECEDED BY A FINDING AS TO HOW AND IN WHAT MANNER, THE ASSE SSEE HAD FURNISHED THE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME. THE COURT ULTIMATELY WEN T ON TO HOLD THAT THE ELEMENT OF MENS REA WAS ESSENTIAL. IT WAS ONLY ON THE POINT OF MENS REA THAT THE JUDGMENT IN DILIP N. SHROFF V. JOINT CIT* WAS UPSET. IN UNION O F INDIA V. DHARAMENDRA TEXTILE PROCESSORS**, AFTER QUOTING FROM SECTION 271 EXTENS IVELY AND ALSO CONSIDERING SECTION 271(1)(C), THE COURT CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT SINCE SECTION 271(1)(C) INDICATED THE ELEMENT OF STRICT LIABILITY ON THE AS SESSEE FOR THE CONCEALMENT OR FOR GIVING INACCURATE PARTICULARS WHILE FILING RETURN, THERE WAS NO NECESSITY OF MENS REA. THE COURT WENT ON TO HOLD THAT THE OBJECTIVE BEHIND THE ENACTMENT OF SECTION 271(1)(C) READ WITH EXPLANATIONS INDICATED WITH THE SAID SECTION WAS FOR PROVIDING REMEDY FOR LOSS OF REVENUE AND SUCH A PENALTY WAS A CIVIL LIABILITY AND, THEREFORE, WILFUL CONCEALMENT IS NOT AN ESSENTIAL INGREDIENT F OR ATTRACTING CIVIL LIABILITY AS WAS THE CASE IN THE MATTER OF PROSECUTION UNDER SECTION 276C OF THE ACT. THE BASIC REASON WHY DECISION IN DILIP N. SHROFF V. JOINT CIT WAS OVERRULED BY THIS COURT IN ITA NOS.7413/M/2014 & 7414/M/2014 SHRI ZIAUDDIN A SIDDIQUE 9 UNION OF INDIA V. DHARAMENDRA TEXTILE PROCESSORS2, WAS THAT ACCORDING TO THIS COURT THE EFFECT AND DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SECTION 271(1)(C) AND SECTION 276C OF THE ACT WAS LOST SIGHT OF IN THE CASE OF DILIP N. SHROFF V. JOINT CIT1. HOWEVER, IT MUST BE POINTED OUT THAT IN UNION OF INDIA V. DHARAMENDRA T EXTILE PROCESSORS**, NO FAULT WAS FOUND WITH THE REASONING IN THE DECISION IN DIL IP N. SHROFF V. JOINT CIT*, WHERE THE COURT EXPLAINED THE MEANING OF THE TERMS 'CONCE AL' AND 'INACCURATE'. IT WAS ONLY THE ULTIMATE INFERENCE IN DILIP N. SHROFF V. J OINT CIT1 TO THE EFFECT THAT MENS REA WAS AN ESSENTIAL INGREDIENT FOR THE PENALTY UND ER SECTION 271(1)(C) THAT THE DECISION IN DILIP N. SHROFF V. JOINT CIT* WAS OVERR ULED. 5. FACTUALLY SPEAKING, THE AFORESAID PLEA OF ASSES SEE IS BORNE OUT OF RECORD AND HAVING REGARD TO THE PARITY OF REASONING LAID D OWN BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF DILIP N. SHROFF (SUPRA), THE N OTICE 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 (SU PRA) 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 D ATED 5.8.2016, A COPY OF WHICH IS ALSO PLACED ON RECORD. 6. 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 FRO M THE DISCUSSION IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, WHEREIN AFTER DISCUSSING THE REAS ONS FOR THE DISALLOWANCE, HE HAS RECORDED A SATISFACTION THAT PENALTY PROCEEDING S 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 DEMONSTRA TE 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. 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 ASS ESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. FURTHER, IT IS ALSO NOTICEABLE TH AT SUCH PROPOSITION HAS BEEN ITA NOS.7413/M/2014 & 7414/M/2014 SHRI ZIAUDDIN A SIDDIQUE 10 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 PE NALTY IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES BEING BAD, HAS BEEN APPROVED. 7. APART FROM THE AFORESAID, THE LD. CIT-DR MADE A N ARGUMENT BASED ON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN TH E 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 I NVALIDATE 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 S IMILAR ISSUE HAD COME UP BEFORE OUR COORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF DR. SARI TA MILIND DAVARE (SUPRA). OUR COORDINATE BENCH, AFTER CONSIDERING THE JUDGMEN T OF THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SMT. KAUSHALYA & ORS., (S UPRA) 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) DED UCED AS UNDER :- 12. A COMBINED READING OF THE DECISION RENDERED 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 A O ISSUED NOTICE U/S 274 FOR CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME BUT LEVIED PEN ALTY FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COU RT QUASHED THE PENALTY SINCE THE BASIS FOR THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS DISAPPEARED W HEN IT WAS HELD THAT THERE WAS NO SUPPRESSION OF INCOME. THE HONBLE KERALA HIGH C OURT HAS STRUCK DOWN THE PENALTY IMPOSED IN THE CASE OF N.N.SUBRAMANIA IYER VS. UNION OF INDIA (SUPRA), WHEN THERE 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 THE INSTANT CASE, THE AO DID NOT SPECIFY THE CHARGE FOR WHICH P ENALTY PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED AND FURTHER HE HAS ISSUED A NOTICE MEANT FOR CALLING THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH THE RETURN OF INCOME. HENCE, IN THE INSTANT CASE, T HE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT SPECIFY THE CHARGE FOR WHICH THE PENALTY PROCEEDING S WERE INITIATED AND ALSO ISSUED AN INCORRECT NOTICE. BOTH THE ACTS OF THE AO, IN OU R 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 HONB LE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HAS DISCUSSED ABOUT NON-APPLICATION OF MIND IN THE CASE OF KAUSHALYA (SUPRA) AND OBSERVED AS UNDER:- ITA NOS.7413/M/2014 & 7414/M/2014 SHRI ZIAUDDIN A SIDDIQUE 11 ....THE NOTICE CLEARLY DEMONSTRATED NON-APPLICATIO N OF MIND ON THE PART OF THE INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER. THE VAGUENES S AND AMBIGUITY IN THE NOTICE HAD ALSO PREJUDICED THE RIGHT OF REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF THE ASSESSEE SINCE HE DID NOT KNOW WHAT EXACT CHARGE HE HAD TO FACE. IN THIS BACK GROUND, QUASHING OF THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS FO R 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 NOT ICE 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 T HE ASSESSEE. 8. THE AFORESAID DISCUSSION CLEARLY BRINGS OUT AS TO THE REASONS WHY THE PARITY OF REASONING LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE SUPREM E COURT IN THE CASE OF DILIP N. SHROFF (SUPRA) IS TO PREVAIL. FOLLOWING TH E DECISION OF OUR COORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF DR. SARITA MILIND DAVARE (SUPR A), WE HEREBY REJECT THE AFORESAID ARGUMENT OF THE LD. CIT-DR. 9. APART FROM THE AFORESAID DISCUSSION, WE MAY ALS O REFER TO THE ONE MORE SEMINAL FEATURE OF THIS CASE WHICH WOULD DEMONSTRAT E THE IMPORTANCE OF NON- STRIKING OFF OF IRRELEVANT CLAUSE IN THE NOTICE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. AS NOTED EARLIER, IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 10.12.2010 T HE ASSESSING OFFICER RECORDS THAT THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE A CT ARE TO BE INITIATED FOR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. HOW EVER, IN THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 274 R.W.S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT OF EVEN DATE, B OTH 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 OBSERVATION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND NON-STRIKING OF F 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 CON VEYED 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 Q UASI-CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT OUGHT TO COMPLY WITH THE PRINC IPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE, AND IN THE PRESENT CASE, CONSIDERING THE OBSERVATIONS O F THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ITA NOS.7413/M/2014 & 7414/M/2014 SHRI ZIAUDDIN A SIDDIQUE 12 ASSESSMENT ORDER ALONGSIDE HIS ACTION OF NON-STRIKI NG OFF OF THE IRRELEVANT CLAUSE IN THE NOTICE SHOWS THAT THE CHARGE BEING MA DE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE QUA SEC. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT IS NOT FIRM AND, THEREFOR E, THE PROCEEDINGS SUFFER FROM NON-COMPLIANCE WITH PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE I NASMUCH 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 RE SPOND. 10. 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 NONAPPLICATION OF MIND HAVING REGARD TO THE RATIO OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE H ON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF DILIP N. SHROFF (SUPRA) AS WELL AS THE JUDG MENT OF THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SHRI SAMSON PERINCHERY (S UPRA). 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 DEA LT WITH. ACCORDINGLY, WE DISMISS THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE. 11. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY THE R EVENUE ARE DISMISSED, AS ABOVE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31.10.2017. SD/- SD/- (RAJESH KUMAR) (D.T. GARASIA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 31.10.2017. * KISHORE, SR. P.S. COPY TO: THE APPELLANT THE RESPONDENT THE CIT, CONCERNED, MUMBAI THE CIT (A) CONCERNED, MUMBAI THE DR CONCERNED BENCH ITA NOS.7413/M/2014 & 7414/M/2014 SHRI ZIAUDDIN A SIDDIQUE 13 //TRUE COPY// [ BY ORD ER DY/ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI.