Sri. Vishwas Udayasingh Lad, Bangalore V. DCIT, Bangalore

ITA 933/BANG/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7423 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-10-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 31-05-2017
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 05-05-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M K BIJU J
• Assessee Lawyers: S RAMASUBRAMANIUM
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ARUN KUMAR GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 9 3 3 /BANG/201 6 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 1 1 - 1 2 SHRI VISHWAS UDAYASINGH LAD, 2990, 12 TH MAIN, 8 TH CROSS, HAL II STAGE, INDIRANAGAR, BANGALORE 560 008. PAN: ABJPL0840K VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE 7(1), BANGALORE. APPELLANT RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI S. RAMASUBRAMANIUM, C. A. REVENUE BY : SHRI M. K. BIJU , J CIT (DR) DATE OF HEARING : 1 0 . 10 .201 7 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31 .10 .2017 O R D E R PER SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS IS AN ASSESSEES APPEAL DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT (A) 1, BENGALURU DATED 18.02.2016 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 -12. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED AS MANY AS 9 GROUNDS OF APPEAL BUT THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS ONLY ONE THAT THE PENALTY IMPOSED B Y THE A.O. U/S 271 (1) ( C) OF THE I. T. ACT, 1961 AND PARTLY CONFIRMED BY CIT (A) TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 12,51,128/- IS NOT JUSTIFIED. 3. LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE NO TICE DATED 28.03.2014 ISSUED U/S 274 IS AVAILABLE ON PAGE NO. 11 OF THE PAPER BO OK AND IN THIS NOTICE, THE ALLEGATION OF THE A.O. IS NOT CLEAR AS TO WHETHER T HE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE INITIATED FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FOR FURNISHI NG INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. HE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE JUDGMENT OF HONB LE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MANJUNATHA COTTON & GINNING FACTORY AS REPORTED IN 359 ITR 565 AND SUBMITTED THAT THE FACT S IN THE PRESENT CASE ARE IDENTICAL AND THEREFORE, THE PENALTY SHOULD BE DELE TED. LEARNED DR OF THE REVENUE PLACED RELIANCE ON A TRIBUNAL ORDER RENDERE D IN THE CASE OF SHRI P. M. ABDULLA VS. ITO IN ITA NO. 1223 & 1224/BANG/2012 DA TED 17.10.2016. HE ITA NO.933/BANG/2016 PAGE 2 OF 3 SUBMITTED A COPY OF THIS TRIBUNAL ORDER AND POINTED OUT THAT IN THIS CASE, THE TRIBUNAL HAS DULY CONSIDERED THIS JUDGMENT OF HONB LE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MANJUNATHA COTTON & GINNING FACTORY AS REPORTED IN 359 ITR 565 AND THEREAFTER, HAS CONFIRM ED THE PENALTY ORDER. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. REGARD ING THE TRIBUNAL ORDER ON WHICH RELIANCE IS PLACED BY THE LEARNED DR OF THE R EVENUE, WE FIND THAT IT IS NOTED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN PARA 9 OF THE ORDER THAT T HE COLUMN RELEVANT TO CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME HAS BEEN TICKE D BY THE A.O. BUT IN THE PRESENT CASE, AS PER THE NOTICE AVAILABLE ON PAGE 1 1 OF THE PAPER BOOK, THERE IS NEITHER ANY TICKING NOR ANY PORTION IS CROSSED OUT. HENCE, IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, THIS TRIBUNAL ORDER IS NOT APPLICABLE BECAUSE ANY JUDGMENT HAS TO BE SEEN IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACTS OF THAT CASE. AS PER THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS . MANJUNATHA COTTON & GINNING FACTORY (SUPRA), IT WAS HELD THAT NOTICE UN DER SECTION 274 OF THE ACT SHOULD SPECIFICALLY STATE THE GROUNDS MENTIONED IN SECTION 271(1)(C), I.E., WHETHER IT IS FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FOR FURN ISHING OF INCORRECT PARTICULARS OF INCOME. IT WAS ALSO HELD THAT SENDING PRINTED FO RM WHERE ALL THE GROUND MENTIONED IN SECTION 271 ARE MENTIONED WOULD NOT SA TISFY REQUIREMENT OF LAW. THE JUDGMENT ALSO HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD KNO W THE GROUNDS WHICH HE HAS TO MEET SPECIFICALLY. OTHERWISE, PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE IS OFFENDED. ON THE BASIS OF SUCH PROCEEDINGS, NO PENALTY COULD BE IMPOSED TO THE ASSESSEE. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THIS JUDGMENT, WE HOLD THAT THE PENALTY ORDER IN THE PRESENT CASE IS NOT VALID. WE QUASH THE SAME. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENT IONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE. SD/- SD/- (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) (ARUN KUMAR GARODIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNT ANT MEMBER BANGALORE, DATED, THE 31 ST OCTOBER, 2017. /MS/ ITA NO.933/BANG/2016 PAGE 3 OF 3 COPY TO: 1. APP ELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE.