Ashok Bhatia, Indore V. DCIT Central-1 Indore, INDORE

ITA 869/Ind/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7073 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-02-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 06-01-2020
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 13-11-2018
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: N D PATWA A RS
• Keywords: Search and seizure; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Retrospective amendment; Question of law; Reasonable cause; Set aside
• Section: 271(1)(c); 143(3); 153A; 292BB; 274; 139(1); 13; 22; 27; 132; 139

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 869/IND/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 APPELLANT BY SHRI ASHISH GOYAL & SHRI N.D. PATWA, ARS REVENUE BY SHRI ASHISH PORWAL, D R DATE OF HEARING 07 .0 1 . 20 20 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 05 .0 2 . 2020 O R D E R PER MANISH BORAD, AM. THE ABOVE CAPTIONED APPEAL FILED AT THE INSTANCE OF ASSESSEE PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 IS DIRECTED A GAINST THE ORDERS OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)- III (IN SHORT LD.CIT(A)], INDORE DATED 14.08.2018 WHICH IS ARIS ING OUT OF THE ORDER U/S 271AAB(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961(I N SHORT THE ACT) DATED 26.09.2016 FRAMED BY DCIT (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE. SHRI ASHOK BHATIA 54, JOSHI MARKET, NALIYA BAKHAL, INDORE VS. DCIT CENTRAL - 1, INDORE (APPELLANT) (RE VENUE ) PAN NO. ACFPB4590H SHRI ASHOK BHATIA ITA NO. 869/IND/2018 2 2. ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL; 1. THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE PEN ALTY U/S 271AAB OF THE ACT OF RS.64,22,348/- LEVIED BY ASSESSING OFFICER W HICH IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW AND THEREFORE PENALTY REQUI RES TO BE DELETED. 1.2 THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN NOT ACCEPTING THE ASSESSEEES CONTENTION AND VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS AND CONFIRMING THE PENALTY LEVIED BY ASSESSING OFFICER THEREFORE PENAL TY REQUIRED TO BE DLETED. 1.3 THAT, THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN INVOKING PROVISION OF SEC.292B FOR CONFIRMING THE PENALTY LEVIED BY ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 271AAB THROUGH NOT BEING INITIATED EVEN BY ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH IS AGAINST THE SPIRIT OF LAW, THEREFORE, PENALTY REQUIRES TO BE DELETED. 2. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADDUCE ADDITI ONAL GROUNDS AND/OR AMEND OR WITHDRAW ANY OF THE AFORESAID GROUNDS BEFO RE, OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF APPEAL. 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE AS CULLED OUT FROM THE R ECORDS ARE THAT ASSESSEE DERIVES INCOME FROM BUSINESS OF RETAIL TRA DING OF SAREES, INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTIES AND INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AS INTEREST. A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATIONS U/S 132 OF THE ACT WERE CARRIED OUT ON THE BUSINESS AS WELL AS RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF CHL GROUP OF INDORE INCLUDING THE ASSESSEE ON 4.10.2013 . THE RETURN FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 WAS FILED ON 22.12.2015 U/S 153A OF THE ACT DECLARING INCOME OF RS.2,24,66,650/-INCLUDI NG SURRENDERED SHRI ASHOK BHATIA ITA NO. 869/IND/2018 3 INCOME OF RS.2,08,00,522/-. ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) W AS COMPLETED ON 22.3.16 ADDING RS.6,07,306/- BEING 20% OF THE JE WELLERY FOUND AND NOT SEIZED VALUED AT RS.30,36,532/- AND INITIAT ING PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271AAB. ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL FOR CIT(A) BUT COULD NOT SUCCEED. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL B EFORE THE TRIBUNAL CHALLENGING THE PENALTY RAISING LEGAL GROU ND AS WELL AS GROUND ON MERITS. 4. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE RAISED ADDITIONAL LEGAL GROUND RELY ON THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF NATIONAL THERMAL POWER COMPANY LIMITED 229 ITR 383(SC) CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF NOTICE ISSU ED U/S 274 R.W.S. 271AAB OF THE ACT CLAIMING IT TO BE ILLEGAL AND BAD IN LAW. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER PLACED RELIANCE ON THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS AND JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS REFERRED TH EREIN. (I) DEFECTIVE NOTICE LD AO INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS IN A CASUAL MEC HANICAL MANNER . THE NOTICE ON PB 57 SHOWS THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT MADE A SPECIFI C CHARGE. THE NOTICE SO ISSUED IS ILLEGAL AND THEREFORE NOT S USTAINABLE IN LAW: RELIANCE IS PLACED ON JUDGMENT OF SHRI VIVEK CHUGH ITA NO.636/IND/2017 DATED 28.03.2019 (INDORE TRIBUNAL), (CL 120- 123) IN WHICH IT WAS HELD THAT: SHRI ASHOK BHATIA ITA NO. 869/IND/2018 4 .... NOTICE ....... 7. A BARE READING OF THE ABOVE NOTICE SUGGESTS THAT THE NOTICE HAS BEEN ISSUED IN A CASUAL FASHION. THE OFFICER HAS NOT APPLIED HIS MIND AND NO SPECIFIC CHARGE IS MENTIONED FOR WHICH THE AS SESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO BE SHOW CAUSED. IN ABSENCE OF THE REQUISI TE CONTENTS OF SPECIFIC CHARGE THE INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS CANNO T BE SUSTAINED BEING BAD IN LAW. FURTHER, RELIANCE IS ALSO PLACED ON THE JUDGMENT IN DCIT VS R. ELANGOVAN (TRIB. CHENNAI) (CL 113), WHERE AGAIN IT WAS HELD THAT SINCE THE PENALTY NOTICE U/S. 271AAB WAS VAGUE, PEN ALTY CANNOT BE LEVIED. FURTHER, LD CIT(A) HAS REFERRED TO THE JUDGMENT OF PR. CIT VS SANDEEP CHANDAK 405 ITR 648 (ALL.) . THIS JUDGMENT WAS DISCUSSED AND DISTINGUISHED IN THE CASE OF RAVI MATHUR VS DCIT (TS-8004-ITAT-2018(JAIPUR)-O) (CL-131-155). 5. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT BEFO RE LEVYING THE PENALTY U/S 271AAB OF THE ACT LD. A.O HAS TO ISSUE NOTICE U/S 274 OF THE ACT, AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 271AAB(3) OF TH E ACT. IN THE NOTICE ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE THERE IS NO MENTION A BOUT THE VARIOUS CONDITIONS PROVIDED U/S 271 AAB OF THE ACT RELATING TO LEVY OF PENALTY @ 10% OR 20% OR 30% (AS THE CASE MAY BE). NOTHING IS SPECIFIED IN THE NOTICE ABOUT CLAUSE-A, B & C OF S ECTION 271AAB OF THE ACT AS TO AT WHAT PERCENTAGE THE PENALTY WILL B E LEVIED ON THE ASSESSEE FOR THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME NOT SURRENDERED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. THE ASSESSEE DESERVES AN OPPORTU NITY TO PLEAD BEFORE THE LD. A.O BEFORE BEING VISITED WITH THE PE NALTY U/S 271AAB SHRI ASHOK BHATIA ITA NO. 869/IND/2018 5 OF THE ACT. THE ALLEGED NOTICE ISSUED U/S 274 R.W. S 271AAB OF THE ACT IS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED SINCE THERE IS A TECHNI CAL DEFECT IN ISSUING THE NOTICE. RELIANCE PLACED ON THE DECISIO N OF CO-ORDINATE BENCH, CHENNAI IN THE CASE OF DCIT V/S R. ELANGOVAN 1199/CHNY/2017 ORDER DATED 05.04.2018 WHICH HAS ALSO BEEN FOLLOWED BY JAIPUR BENCH OF TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF RAVI MATHUR VS. DCIT, ITA NO.969/JP/2017 LAYING DOWN THE PROPOSITION THAT SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 274 OF THE ACT WITHOUT DRAW ING REQUISITE LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271AAB OF THE ACT IS A DEFECTIVE NOT ICE AND IS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. 6. PER CONTRA LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE VEHEM ENTLY ARGUED SUPPORTING THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES A ND ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE LEGAL ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESS EE IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED SINCE IN THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 274 OF THE ACT THE LD. A.O HAS SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED THE SECTION 271AAB OF TH E ACT AND IT MAY HAVE BEEN A CLERICAL ERROR ON THE PART OF THE LD. A .O TO USE THE SAME PROFORMA AS USED FOR ISSUING NOTICE U/S 274 R.W.S. 271(1)(C ) OF THE ACT. ON MERITS THE ASSESSEE HAS NO CASE SINCE THE ALLEGED ADDITION WAS NOT SURRENDERED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, NO T INCLUDED IN SHRI ASHOK BHATIA ITA NO. 869/IND/2018 6 THE INCOME TAX RETURN AND TAXES NOT PAID AND SUCH U NDISCLOSED INCOME HAS RIGHTLY BEEN PENALIZED @30% AS PER THE P ROVISIONS OF SECTION 271 AAB(C) OF THE ACT. LD. DEPARTMENTAL RE PRESENTATIVE STRONGLY RELIED ON THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE ALLAHABA D HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PR. CIT VS. SANDEEP CHANDAK (2018) 405 ITR 648. THIS JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT STANDS CON FIRMED BY HON'BLE SUPREME COURT ALSO. 7. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORDS PLACED BEFORE US. THE LEGAL ISSUE BEFORE US IS THAT WHETHER THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 274 R.W.S. 271AAB OF THE ACT SUFF ERS FROM FATAL ERROR AND TECHNICAL DEFECT THEREBY NOT PROVIDING AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO PLEAD HIS CASE. SINCE THE LEGAL GR OUND GOES TO BE ROOT CAUSE OF THE ISSUE LEVYING PENALTY U/S 271AAB OF THE ACT, WE IN VIEW OF THE RATIO HELD BY THE HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF NATIONAL THERMAL POWER COMPANY LIMITED (SUPRA) ADMIT THE ADDITIONAL LEGAL GROUND FOR ADJUDICATION. FOR LEVY ING PENALTY U/S 271AAB OF THE ACT THE LD. A.O NEEDS TO PRIMARILY IS SUE NOTICE U/S 274 OF THE ACT SO FOR INITIATING PROCEEDINGS U/S 27 1AAB OF THE ACT THE LD. A.O HAS TO FIRST PASS THROUGH THE HURDLE OF SECTION 274 OF SHRI ASHOK BHATIA ITA NO. 869/IND/2018 7 THE ACT. FOR BETTER UNDERSTANDING WE REPRODUCE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271AAB AND 274 OF THE ACT WHICH READS AS F OLLOWS:- SECTION 271AAB OF THE ACT. '271AAB. PENALTY WHERE SEARCH HAS BEEN INITIATED.( 1) THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY, NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN ANY OTHER PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT, DIRECT THAT, IN A CASE WHERE SEARCH HAS B EEN INITIATED UNDER SECTION 132 ON OR AFTER THE 1ST DAY OF JULY, 2012, THE ASSE SSEE SHALL PAY BY WAY OF PENALTY, IN ADDITION TO TAX, IF ANY, PAYABLE BY HIM , (A) A SUM COMPUTED AT THE RATE OF TEN PER CENT OF THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE SPECIFIED PREVIOUS YEAR, IF SUCH ASSESSEE (I) IN THE COURSE OF THE SEARCH, IN A STATEMENT UN DER SUB-SECTION (4) OF SECTION 132, ADMITS THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME AND SPEC IFIES THE MANNER IN WHICH SUCH INCOME HAS BEEN DERIVED; (II) SUBSTANTIATES THE MANNER IN WHICH THE UNDISCL OSED INCOME WAS DERIVED; AND (III) ON OR BEFORE THE SPECIFIED DATE (A) PAYS THE TAX, TOGETHER WITH INTEREST, IF ANY, IN RESPECT OF THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME; AND (B) FURNISHES THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE SPECIFI ED PREVIOUS YEAR DECLARING SUCH UNDISCLOSED INCOME THEREIN; (B) A SUM COMPUTED AT THE RATE OF TWENTY PER CENT OF THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE SPECIFIED PREVIOUS YEAR, IF SUCH ASSE SSEE (I) IN THE COURSE OF THE SEARCH, IN A STATEMENT UN DER SUB-SECTION (4) OF SECTION 132, DOES NOT ADMIT THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME; AND (II) ON OR BEFORE THE SPECIFIED DATE (A) DECLARES SUCH INCOME IN THE RETURN OF INCOME F URNISHED FOR THE SPECIFIED PREVIOUS YEAR; AND (B) PAYS THE TAX, TOGETHER WITH INTEREST, IF ANY, IN RESPECT OF THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME; (C) A SUM WHICH SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN THIRTY PER CENT BUT WHICH SHALL NOT EXCEED NINETY PER CENT OF THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE SPECIFIED PREVIOUS YEAR, IF IT IS NOT COVERED BY THE PROVISIO NS OF CLAUSES (A) AND (B). (2) NO PENALTY UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF CLAUSE (C) O F SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 271 SHALL BE IMPOSED UPON THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT O F THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME REFERRED TO IN SUB-SECTION (1). (3) THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 274 AND 275 SHALL, A S FAR AS MAY BE, APPLY IN RELATION TO THE PENALTY REFERRED TO IN THIS SECTION . EXPLANATION.FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, (A) 'SPECIFIED DATE' MEANS THE DUE DATE OF FURNISH ING OF RETURN OF INCOME UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 139 OR THE DATE ON WHICH THE PERIOD SPECIFIED IN THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 153A F OR FURNISHING OF RETURN OF INCOME EXPIRES, AS THE CASE MAY BE; SHRI ASHOK BHATIA ITA NO. 869/IND/2018 8 (B) 'SPECIFIED PREVIOUS YEAR' MEANS THE PREVIOUS Y EAR (I) WHICH HAS ENDED BEFORE THE DATE OF SEARCH, BUT THE DATE OF FURNISHING THE RETURN OF INCOME UNDER SUB-SECTION ( 1) OF SECTION 139 FOR SUCH YEAR HAS NOT EXPIRED BEFORE THE DATE O F SEARCH AND THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE PREVIOUS YEAR BEFORE THE DATE OF SEARCH; OR (II) IN WHICH SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED; (C) 'UNDISCLOSED INCOME' MEANS (I) ANY INCOME OF THE SPECIFIED PREVIOUS YEAR REPR ESENTED, EITHER WHOLLY OR PARTLY, BY ANY MONEY, BULLION, JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE OR THING OR ANY ENTRY IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR OTHER DOCUMENTS OR TRANSACTIONS FOUND IN THE COURSE OF A SEARCH UNDER SECTION 132, WHICH HAS (A) NOT BEEN RECORDED ON OR BEFORE THE DATE OF SEAR CH IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR OTHER DOCUMENTS MAINTAINED IN THE NOR MAL COURSE RELATING TO SUCH PREVIOUS YEAR; OR (B) OTHERWISE NOT BEEN DISCLOSED TO THE CHIEF COMM ISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER BEFORE THE DATE OF SEARCH; OR (II) ANY INCOME OF THE SPECIFIED PREVIOUS YEAR REPR ESENTED, EITHER WHOLLY OR PARTLY, BY ANY ENTRY IN RESPECT OF AN EXP ENSE RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR OTHER DOCUMENTS MAINTAIN ED IN THE NORMAL COURSE RELATING TO THE SPECIFIED PREVIOUS YE AR WHICH IS FOUND TO BE FALSE AND WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN FOUND TO BE SO HAD THE SEARCH NOT BEEN CONDUCTED.'. SECTION 274 OF THE ACT (1) NO ORDER IMPOSING A PENALTY UNDER THIS CHAPTER SHA LL BE MADE UNLESS THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN HEARD, OR HAS BEEN GIVEN A RE ASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. (2) NO ORDER IMPOSING A PENALTY UNDER THIS CHAPTER SHA LL BE MADE- (A) BY THE INCOME- TAX OFFICER, WHERE THE PENALTY EXCE EDS TEN THOUSAND RUPEES; (B) BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, WHERE THE PENALTY E XCEEDS TWENTY THOUSAND RUPEES, EXCEPT WITH THE PRIOR APPROVAL OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER.] (3) AN INCOME- TAX AUTHORITY ON MAKING AN ORDER UNDER THIS CHAPTER IMPOSING A PENALTY, UNLESS HE IS HIMSELF THE ASSESS ING OFFICER, SHALL FORTHWITH SEND A COPY OF SUCH ORDER TO THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER'] 8. FROM PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE PROVISION WE OBSERVE T HAT SUB SECTION 3 OF SECTION 271AAB OF THE ACT TALKS ABOUT ISSUING THE SHRI ASHOK BHATIA ITA NO. 869/IND/2018 9 NOTICE U/S 274 OF THE ACT. SO FOR INITIATING THE PE NALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271AAB OF THE ACT THE FIRST STEP TO BE TAKEN BY LD. A.O IS TO ISSUE A VALID NOTICE U/S 274 OF THE ACT. SUB-SECTIO N (1) TO SECTION 274 OF THE ACT PROVIDES A PROCEDURE THAT NO ORDER IMPOSING A PENALTY UNDER THIS CHAPTER SHALL BE MADE UNLESS THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN HEARD, OR HAS BEEN GIVEN A REASONABLE OPPORTUN ITY OF BEING HEARD. TO COMPLY WITH THIS REQUIREMENT THE NOTICE U/S 274 SHOULD BE CLEAR ENOUGH TO CONVEY THE ASSESSEE ABOUT THE CH ARGE WHICH IS TO BE LEVELED AGAINST HIM/HER/IT FOR LEVYING THE PENAL TY FOR THE CONTRAVENTION OF THE RELATED PROVISIONS OF THE ACT WHICH IN THE INSTANT CASE RELATES TO NOT SURRENDERING OF UNDISCL OSED AMOUNT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH WHICH IS SUBSEQUENTLY A DMITTED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT AND NOT CHALLENGED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). SO IT WAS INCUMBENT FOR LD. A.O THAT IN THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 274 OF THE ACT HE SHOULD HAVE MENTIONED THAT PENALTY U/ S 271AAB OF THE ACT MAY BE LEVIED @10/20/ 30% SINCE THE ASSESS EE FALLS IN CLAUSES (A)/(B)/(C) OF SECTION 271AAB OF THE ACT. HE SHOULD HAVE FURTHER MENTIONED THAT AS THE ASSESSEES CASE FALLS UNDER CLAUSE-C OF SECTION 271AAB OF THE ACT, WHY SHE SHOULD NOT BE VISITED BY PENALTY @30% OF THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME. AGAINST TH IS CHARGE THE SHRI ASHOK BHATIA ITA NO. 869/IND/2018 10 ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN A REASONABLE OPPORT UNITY OF BEING HEARD. 9. NOW LET US REVERT BACK TO THE FACT OF THE INSTAN T CASE OF THE ASSESSEE AND LOOK INTO WHAT HAS BEEN MENTIONED IN T HE ALLEGED NOTICES ISSUED U/S 274 R.W.S. 2371AAB OF THE ACT, W HICH ARE REPRODUCED BELOW; NOTICE UNDER SECTION 274 READ WITH SECTION 271AAB O F THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 PAN. ACFPB4590H OFFICE OF THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-I, INDO RE DATE: 22.03.2016 TO SHRI ASHOK KUMAR BHATIA 33-A RADHA NAGAR NEELKANTH COLONY INDORE-452006 WHEREAS IN THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE ME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 IT APPEARS TO ME THAT YOU :- *HAVE WITHOUT REASONABLE CAUSE FAILED TO FURNISH ME RETURN OF INCOME WITH YOU WERE REQUIRED TO FURNISH BY A NOTICE GIVEN UNDER SECTION 22(1)/22(2)/34 OF THE INDIA INCOME TAX ACT, 1922 OR WHICH YOU WERE REQUIRED TO FURNISH UNDER SECTION 193(1) OR BY A NO TICE GIVEN UNDER SECTION 193(2)/148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961, NO. . DATED.. OR HAVE WITHOUT REASONABLE CAUSE FAILED TO FURNISH IT WITHI N THE ALLOWED AND THE MANNER REQUIRED BY THE SIDE SECTION 139(1) OR BY SU CH NOTICE. *HAVE WITHOUT REASONABLE CAUSE FAILED TO COMPLY WIT H A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 22(4)/23(2) OF THE INDIA INCOME TAX ACT, 19 22 OR UNDER SECTION 142(1)/143(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961, NO. DATED HAVE CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF YOUR INCOME OR FU RNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME. YOU ARE HEREBY REQUESTED TO APPEAR BEFORE ME ON 21. 04.2016 AT 3.30 PM AND SHOW CAUSE WHY AN ORDER IMPOSING A PENA LTY ON YOU SHOULD NOT BE MADE UNDER SECTION 271AAB OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 IF YOU DO SHRI ASHOK BHATIA ITA NO. 869/IND/2018 11 NOT WISH TO AVAIL YOURSELF OF THIS OPPORTUNITY OF B EARING HEARD IN PERSON OR THROUGH AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE YOU MAY SHOW C AUSE IN WRITING ON OR BEFORE THE SIDE DATE WHICH WILL BE CONSIDERED BE FORE ANY SUCH ORDER IS MADE UNDER SECTION 271AAB. SD/- (AMIT KUMAR SONI) ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-I INDORE OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-I, INDO RE PAN. ACFPB4590H DATE: 03.06.2016 TO SHRI ASHOK KUMAR BHATIA 33-A RADHA NAGAR NEELKANTH COLONY INDORE-452006 SIR, SUB: PENALTY FIXATION U/S 271AAB OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 FOR THE A.Y. 2014-15-REG. PLEASE REFER TO THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271AAB OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 FOR THE A.Y. 2014-15 IN THE ABOVE MENT IONED CASE, YOU ARE HEREBY REQUESTED TO APPEAR BEFORE THE UNDERSIGNED O N 10.06.2016 AT 11.50AM IN MY OFFICE AT ROOM NO.101, AAYAKAR BHAWAN , MAIN OPP. WHITE CHURCH, INDORE PERSONALLY OR THROUGH AUTHORIZ ED REPRESENTATIVE TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY PENALTY U/S 271AAB OF THE I.T. ACT 1961 BE NOT LEVIED AGAINST YOU? IF YOU DO NOT WANT TO APPEAR PE RSONALLY, YOU MAY SEND YOUR WRITTEN REPLY ON OR BEFORE ABOVE MENTIONE D DATE, OTHERWISE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS SHALL BE DECIDED ON MERITS. SD/- (AMIT KUMAR SONI) DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-I INDORE OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-I, INDO RE PAN. ACFPB4590H DATE: 16.09.2016 SHRI ASHOK BHATIA ITA NO. 869/IND/2018 12 TO SHRI ASHOK KUMAR BHATIA 33-A RADHA NAGAR NEELKANTH COLONY INDORE-452006 SIR, SUB: PENALTY FIXATION U/S 271AAB R.W.S. 129 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 -REG. PLEASE REFER TO THE ABOVE THE FOLLOWING PENALTY PROCEEDING ARE INITIATED DURI NG ASSESSMENT AS MENTIONED BELOW: S.NO. A.Y. SECTION PENALTY INITIATED ON 1 2014 - 15 271AAB 22.03.2016 YOU ARE REQUESTED TO APPEAR BEFORE THE UNDERSIGNED ON 19.09.2016 AT 11.00 AM IN MY OFFICE AT ROOM NO.101, AAYAKAR BH AWAN, MAIN OPP. WHITE CHURCH, INDORE PERSONALLY OR THROUGH AUTHORIZ ED REPRESENTATIVE TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY PENALTY U/S 271AAB OF THE I.T. ACT 1961 BE NOT LEVIED AGAINST YOU? IF YOU DO NOT WANT TO APPEAR PE RSONALLY, YOU MAY SEND YOUR WRITTEN REPLY ON OR BEFORE ABOVE MENTIONE D DATE. IF ANY THAT YOU HAVE NOTHING TO SAY IN THIS REGARD. IT IS TO BR OUGHT TO YOUR NOTICE THAT THERE IS A CHANGE IN INCUMBENT HENCE THIS NOTICE IS ISSUED TO PROVIDE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. SD/- (AMIT KUMAR SONI) DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-I INDORE 10. FROM GOING THROUGH THE ABOVE THREE NOTICES ISSU ED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 22.03.2016, 03.06.2016 AND 16.09.2016, WE FIND THAT THERE IS NO MENTION ABOUT VARIOUS CONDITIONS PROVID ED U/S 271 AAB OF THE ACT. THE LD. A.O HAS VERY CASUALLY USED THE PROFORMA USED FOR ISSUING NOTICE BEFORE LEVYING PENALTY U/S 271(1 )(C) OF THE ACT FOR SHRI ASHOK BHATIA ITA NO. 869/IND/2018 13 THE CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURA TE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. EXCEPT MENTIONING THE SECTION 271AAB OF TH E ACT IN THE NOTICE IT DOES NOT TALK ANYTHING ABOUT THE PROVISIO N OF SECTION 271AAB. CERTAINLY SUCH NOTICE HAS A FATAL ERROR AN D TECHNICALLY IS NOT A CORRECT NOTICE IN THE EYES OF LAW BECAUSE IT INTENDS TO PENALIZE AN ASSESSEE WITHOUT SPELLING ABOUT THE CHARGE AGAIN ST THE ASSESSEE. 11. HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE O F PCIT V/S KULWANT SINGH BHATIA (SUPRA) DEALT THE ISSUE OF DEFECTIVE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 274 R.W.S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT AND HON' BLE COURT AFTER RELYING JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CA SE OF CIT V/S MANJUNATHA COTTON GINNING FACTORY AND CIT V/S SSAS EMERALD MEADOWS (SUPRA) HELD THAT SUCH SHOW CAUSE NOTICES WOULD NOT SATISFY THE REQUIREMENT OF LAW AS NOTICE WAS NOT SP ECIFIC. MERELY ISSUING NOTICE IN GENERAL PROFORMA WILL NEGATE THE VERY PURPOSE OF NATURAL JUSTICE. HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF DILIP N SHRAF 161 TAXMANN 218 HELD THAT THE QUASI CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT OUGHT TO COMPLY WITH THE PRINCIPLES OF N ATURAL JUSTICE. 12. IN THE CASE OF DCIT V/S R. ELANGOVAN LTD (SUPRA) , CO-ORDINATE BENCH, CHENNAI WHILE DEALING WITH THE LEGAL GROUND CHALLENGING THE SHRI ASHOK BHATIA ITA NO. 869/IND/2018 14 VALIDITY OF NOTICE ISSUED U/S 274 R.W.S. 271AAB OF THE ACT HAD OBSERVED THAT ; IT IS CLEAR FROM THE SUB SECTION (3) OF SECTION 27 1 AAB THAT SECTIONS 274 AND SECTION 275 OF THE ACT SHALL, SO FAR AS MAY BE, APPLY. SUB SECTION (1) OF SECTION 274 OF THE ACT MANDATES THAT ORDER IMPOS ING PENALTY HAS TO BE IMPOSED ONLY AFTER HEARING THE ASSESSEE OR GIVING A ASSESSEE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING. OPPORTUNITY THAT IS TO BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE A MEANINGFUL ONE AND NOT A FARCE. NOTICE ISSUED TO TH E ASSESSEE REPRODUCED (SUPRA), DOES NOT SHOW WHETHER PENALTY PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FOR HAVING UNDISCLOSED INCOME WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 271AAB OF THE ACT. NOTICE IN OUR OPINION WAS VAGUE. HON'BLE K ARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SSA'S EMERALD MEADOWS (SUPRA) RELYING I N ITS OWN JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY ( SUPRA) HAD HELD AS UNDER:- '2. THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED RAISING THE FOLLOWING SU BSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW. (1) WHETHER, OMISSION IF ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXPLICITL Y MENTION THAT PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE BEING INITIATED FOR FU RNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OR THAT FOR CONCEALMENT OF I NCOME MAKES THE PENALTY ORDER LIABLE FOR CANCELLATION EVE N WHEN IT HAS BEEN PROVED BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT THAT THE AS SESSEE 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 JUSTIFIED IN LAW IN HOLDING THAT T HE PENALTY NOTICE UNDER SECTION 274 R.W.S. 271(1)(C) IS BAD IN LAW AND SHRI ASHOK BHATIA ITA NO. 869/IND/2018 15 INVALID DESPITE THE AMENDMENT OF SECTION 271 (1 B) WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT AND BY VIRTUE OF THE AMENDMENT , THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS INITIATED THE PENALTY BY PROP ERLY 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 THE APPEALS AGAINST THE REVENUE ON THE BASIS OF NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 274 WITHOUT TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE ASSESSMENT OR DER WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS SPECIFIED THAT THE ASSESS EE 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 SECTIO N 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 PENALTY PROCEEDINGS HAD BEEN INITIATED I.E., WHETHER FOR CO NCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS O F INCOME. THE TRIBUNAL, WHILE ALLOWING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE, HAS RELI ED ON THE DECISION OF THE DIVISION BENCH OF THIS COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY (2013) 359 ITR 565. 4. IN OUR VIEW, SINCE THE MATTER IS COVERED BY JUDG MENT OF THE DIVISION BENCH OF THIS COURT, WE ARE OF THE OPINION, NO SUBS TANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW ARISES IN THIS APPEAL FOR DETERMINATION BY THIS COU RT. THE APPEAL IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED'. IN THE EARLIER CASE OF MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNIN G FACTORY (SUPRA) THEIR LORDSHIP HAD OBSERVED AS UNDER:- 'NOTICE UNDER SECTION 274 OF THE ACT SHOULD SPECIFICALLY STATE THE GROUNDS MENTIONED IN SECTION 271(L)(C) , I.E., WHETHER IT IS SHRI ASHOK BHATIA ITA NO. 869/IND/2018 16 FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FOR FURNISHING OF INCO RRECT PARTICULARS OF INCOME. SENDING PRINTED FORM WHERE A LL THE GROUNDS MENTIONED IN SECTION 271 ARE MENTIONED WOULD NOT SATISFY THE REQUIREMENT OF LAW; THE ASSESSEE SHOULD KNOW THE GROUNDS WHICH HE HAS TO MEET SPECIFICALLY. OTHERWISE, THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE ARE OFFENDED. ON THE BASIS OF SUCH PROCEEDINGS, NO PENA LTY COULD BE IMPOSED ON THE ASSESSEE) TAKING UP OF PENALTY PR OCEEDINGS ON ONE LIMB AND FINDING THE ASSESSEE GUILTY OF ANOT HER LIMB IS BAD IN LAW; PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE DISTINCT FROM TH E ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS : THOUGH PROCEEDINGS FOR IMP OSITION OF PENALTY EMANATE FROM PROCEEDINGS OF ASSESSMENT, THE Y ARE INDEPENDENT AND A SEPARATE ASPECT OF THE PROCEEDING S; THE FINDINGS RECORDED IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN SO FAR AS 'CONCEALMENT OF INCOME' AND 'FURNISHING OF INCOR RECT PARTICULARS' WOULD NOT OPERATE AS RES JUDICATA IN T HE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. IT IS OPEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO CONTEST THE PROCEEDINGS ON THE MERITS. HOWEVER, THE VALIDITY OF THE ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT IN PURSUANCE OF WHICH PE NALTY IS LEVIED, CANNOT BE THE SUBJECT MATTER OF PENALTY PRO CEEDINGS. THE ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT CANNOT BE DECLARED I NVALID IN THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS'. VIEW TAKEN BY THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN T HE ABOVE JUDGMENT WAS INDIRECTLY AFFIRMED BY THE HON'BLE APEX COURT, WHEN IT DISMISSED AN SLP FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN TH E CASE OF SSA'S EMERALD MEADOWS (SUPRA), SPECIFICALLY OBSERVING THA T THERE WAS NO MERITS IN THE PETITION FILED BY THE REVENUE. CONSIDERING T HE ABOVE CITED JUDGMENTS, WE HOLD THAT THE NOTICE ISSUED UJS.274 R .W.S. 271AAB OF THE ACT, REPRODUCED BY US AT PARA 5 ABOVE WAS NOT VALID . EX-CONSEQUENTI, THE SHRI ASHOK BHATIA ITA NO. 869/IND/2018 17 PENALTY ORDER IS SET ASIDE. 13. THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF CHEN NAI IN THE CASE OF DCIT V/S R. ELANGOVAN 1199/CHNY/2017 ORDER DATED 05.04.2018 HAS BEEN SUBSEQUENTLY FOLLOWED BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF JAIPUR IN THE CASE OF RAVI MATHUR VS. DCIT, ITA NO.969/JP/2017 HOLDING THAT SUCH SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 274 R.W.S. 271AAB OF THE ACT ARE NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW. 14. AS REGARDS TO JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE ALLAHABAD HIG H COURT IN THE CASE OF PR. CIT VS SANDEEP CHANDAK (SUPRA) WHICH HAS BEEN RELIED BY THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE IS CONCERNED, WE FIND THAT IN THE DECISION RENDERED BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF J AIPUR IN THE CASE OF RAVI MATHUR VS DCIT (SUPRA) WHEREIN ALSO SIMILAR ISSUE OF DEFECTIVE NOTICE U/S 274 R.W.S. 271AAB WAS ADJUDICA TED, THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CAS E OF PR. CIT VS SANDEEP CHANDAK (SUPRA) HAS BEEN DISCUSSED AND DISTINGUISHED OBSERVING AS FOLLOWS:- IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN PARA 5 OF THIS JUDGM ENT (RAVI MATHUR), THE CASE QUOTED BY LD CIT(A) PR. CIT VS SANDEEP CHAND AK (ALL.) WAS DISTINGUISHED AS UNDER: 5. BEFORE WE PROCEED FURTHER, THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE LD D/R ARE TO BE CONSIDERED. IN THE CASE OF PRINCIPAL C IT VS SANDEEP CHANDAK & OTHERS [TS-6389-HC-2017(ALLAHABAD)-O] (SUP RA) THE ISSUE BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT WAS THE DEFECT I N THE NOTICE SHRI ASHOK BHATIA ITA NO. 869/IND/2018 18 ISSUED UNDER SECTION 271AAB ON ACCOUNT MENTIONING W RONG PROVISION OF THE ACT BEING 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSU ED BY THE AO THOUGH MENTIONS SECTION 271(1) IN THE CAPTION OF TH E SAID NOTICE, HOWEVER, THE BODY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE CLEARLY M ENTIONS SECTION 271AAB, WHICH WAS FULLY COMPREHENDED BY THE ASSESSEE AS REVEALS IN THE REPLY FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE SAID S HOW CAUSE NOTICE. HENCE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS HELD AS UNDE R: - THE LD A.RS HAVE ALSO CHALLENGED THAT THE CAPTION OF THE NOTICE MENTIONED ONLY SECTION 271 AND NOT 271AAB. IN THIS R ESPECT, THE COPY OF NOTICE HAS BEEN PRODUCED BY THE LD. A.R. BEFOR E ME. IT IS SEEN THAT THE LD A.R IS CORRECT IN OBSERVING THAT THE SEC TION OF PENALTY HAS NOT BEEN CORRECTLY MENTIONED BY THE AO IN THE CAPTIO N. HOWEVER, THE AO WILL GET THE BENEFIT OF SECTION 292BB OF THE INC OME TAX ACT, 1961 BECAUSE FIRSTLY, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED NO OBJECTIO N BEFORE THE AO IN THIS REGARD. SECONDLY, LAST LINE OF THE NOTICE CLEARL Y MENTIONS SECTION 271AAB. THIRDLY, THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN REPLY TO SAI D NOTICE WHICH SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE FULLY COMPREHENDED THE IMPLIC ATION OF THE NOTICE THAT IT IS FOR SECTION 271AAB. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO CHALLENGED THAT THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE HAS NOT FOLLOWED BY THE AO. THE DETAILED SUB MISSIONS OF A.R. IN THIS REGARD HAS ALREADY BEEN REPRODUCED ABOVE. THE A.R. DID NOT PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT HE WAS NOT GIVEN P ROPER OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING. IT IS CLEAR FROM THE PENALT Y ORDER THAT THE AO HAS GIVEN NOTICE AND WHICH WAS ALSO REPLIED BY THE A SSESSEE. THEREFORE, IN MY OPINION, PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUST ICE HAS NOT BEEN VIOLATED. THUS IN VIEW OF ABOVE DISCUSSION PENALTY I MPOSED BY AO U/S. 271AAB OF THE ACT IS CONFIRMED. THUS IT WAS FOUND BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT THAT TH E MISTAKE IN MENTIONING THE SECTION IN THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE IS COVERED UNDER SECTION 292BB AND THE AO WILL GET THE BENEFIT OF TH E SAME. THE SAID DECISION WILL NOT HELP THE CASE OF THE REVENUE SO FA R AS THE ISSE INVOLVES THE MERITS OF LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTIO N 271AAB. AS REGARDS THE DECISION OF KOLKATA BENCHES OF THE TRIBU NAL IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS AMIT AGRAWAL (TS-7675-ITAT-2017(KOLKATA) -O) (SUPRA), WE FIND THAT THE SAID DECISION WAS SUBSEQUENTLY RECALLED BY THE TRIBUNAL AND A FRESH ORDER DATED 14 TH MARCH, 2018 WAS PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE DECISION RELIED UPON BY THE LD D/R IS NO MORE IN EXISTENCE. SHRI ASHOK BHATIA ITA NO. 869/IND/2018 19 15. WE, THEREFORE RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE JUDGME NT OF JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PCIT V/S KULWANT SINGH BHATIA (SUPRA) , DECISION OF CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF CHENNAI IN THE CASE OF DCIT V/S R. ELANGOVAN (SUPRA) AND JAIPUR BENCH IN THE CASE OF RAVI MATHUR VS DCIT (SUPRA) AND IN THE GIVEN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE WHEREIN THE MATTER WRITTE N IN THE BODY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 274 OF THE ACT DOES NOT REFER TO THE CHARGES OF PROVISION OF SECTION 271AAB OF THE ACT MAKES THE AL LEGED NOTICE DEFECTIVE AND INVALID AND THUS DESERVES TO BE QUASH ED. SINCE THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ITSELF HAS BEEN QUASHED THE IMP UGNED PENALTY OF RS.64,22,348/- STANDS DELETED. THUS ASSESSEE SU CCEEDS ON LEGAL GROUND CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF NOTICE ISSUED U/ S 274 R.W.S. 271AAB OF THE ACT. 16. SINCE THE PENALTY U/S 271AAB HAS BEEN DEALT AN D DELETED ON THE PRELIMINARY LEGAL POINTS, OTHER ARGUMENTS OF TH E ASSESSEE DEALING WITH THE MERITS OF THE LEVY OF PENALTY ARE NOT BEEN DEALT WITH, AS THE SAME ARE RENDERED ACADEMIC IN NATURE. THUS GROUNDS RAISED ON MERITS ARE DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS. APPE AL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2014-15 IS PARTL Y ALLOWED. SHRI ASHOK BHATIA ITA NO. 869/IND/2018 20 17. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESS MENT YEAR 2014- 15 IS PARTLY ALLOWED. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 05.02.20 20. SD/- SD/- ( KUL BHARAT) (MANISH BORAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / DATED : 05 FEBRUARY, 2020 /DEV COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/CIT CONCERNED/CIT (A) CONCERNED/ DR, ITAT, INDORE/GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, ASSTT.REGISTRAR, I.T.A.T., INDORE