Jeetmal Choraria, Kolkata V. ACIT, CIR-43, KOLKATA, Kolkata

ITA 956/KOL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0821 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-12-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 06-05-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ARINDAM BHATTACHARJEE
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Initiation of penalty proceedings
• Section: 69

Judgement Text

ITA NO.956/KOL/2016 JEETMAL CHORARIA A.Y.2010-11 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH : KOLKATA [BEFORE HONBLE SRI N.V.VASUDEVAN, JM & DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, AM] I.T.A NO.956/KOL/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-1 1 JEETMAL CHORARIA -VS.- A.C.I.T., CIRCLE- 43, KOLKATA KOLKATA [PAN : ACOPC 2124 K] (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR THE APPELLANT : SHRI ANIL KOCHAR, ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT : SHRI ARINDAM BHATTACHARJ EE, ADDL.CIT DATE OF HEARING : 27.11.2017. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 01.12.2017. ORDER PER N.V.VASUDEVAN, JM THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORD ER DATED 16.02.2016 OF CIT(A)-13, KOLKATA RELATING TO A.Y.2010-11. 2. IN THIS APPEAL THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE ORDER OF CIT(A) WHEREBY THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF AO IMPOSING PENALTY O N THE ASSESSEE U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (ACT). 3. THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT WAS IMPOSED ON THE ASSESSEE BY THE AO ARE AS FOLLOWS :- THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL. HE CARRIES ON THE BU SINESS OF TRADING IN CLOTH AND ACTS AS COMMISSION AGENT IN CLOTH DEALING AND R EADY-MADE GARMENTS AS PROPRIETOR M/S.J.M.JAIN. IN THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED U/S.143( 3) OF THE ACT, THE AO NOTICED THAT OUT OF THE SUM OF RS.14,21,052 WHICH WAS CLAIM ED AS EXPENSES UNDER THE ELECTRICITY EXPENSES, A SUM OF RS.1,81,730 DID NOT RELATE TO THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE. THE SAID SUM WAS ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. IN RESPECT OF THE AFORESAID ADDITION MADE IN THE COURSE OF ASS ESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. THERE WERE SEVEN OTHER ITA NO.956/KOL/2016 JEETMAL CHORARIA A.Y.2010-11 2 ADDITIONS MADE TO THE INCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSESS EE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. THE INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS WAS NOT MADE WITH REFERENCE TO ANY SPECIFIC ITEM OF ADDITION. IN THE LAST PARAGRAPH OF THE ORDER OF AS SESSMENT, THE AO HAS OBSERVED AS FOLLOWS: PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S.271(1)( C) HAS BEEN INITIA TED IN THIS REGARD 4. IN THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE TRIED T O EXPLAIN THAT THE CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF ELECTRICITY EXPENSES WHICH DID NOT RELATE TO THE PREMISES IN WHICH BUSINESS WAS NOT CARRIED WAS MADE INADVERTENT LY. WHEN THE MISTAKE WAS POINTED OUT IT WAS ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE A SSESSEE THUS PLEADED THAT THERE WAS NO INTENTION TO CONCEAL OR FURNISH PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THIS EXPLANATION WAS NOT ACCEPTED IN THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS AND PENALTY U/.S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT WAS IMPOSED ON THE ASSESSEE BY THE AO. THE ORDER OF AO WAS CONFIRMED BY CIT(A). AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE HAS F ILED THE PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 5. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEF ORE US THAT THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 274 OF THE ACT BEFORE IMPOSING PENALTY D OES NOT CONTAIN THE SPECIFIC CHARGE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE NAMELY AS TO WHETHER THE ASSES SEE WAS GUILTY OF HAVING CONCEALED PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR HAVING FURNISHED INACCURAT E PARTICULARS OF INCOME. A COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE U/S 274 OF THE ACT WAS FILED BEFORE US AND PERUSAL OF THE SAME REVEALS THAT AO HAS NOT STRUCK OUT THE IRRELEVANT P ORTION IN THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE AND THEREFORE THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DOES NOT SPECIFY TH E CHARGE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AS TO WHETHER THE CHARGE IS OF CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE SAME IS REPR ODUCED FOR THE PURPOSE OF READY REFERENCE: HAVE CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF YOUR INCOME OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME. 6. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DREW OUR ATTEN TION TO THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SSAS E MERALD MEADOWS IN ITA NO.380 ITA NO.956/KOL/2016 JEETMAL CHORARIA A.Y.2010-11 3 OF 2015 DATED 23.11.2015 WHEREIN THE HONBLE KARNAT AKA HIGH COURT FOLLOWING ITS OWN DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS MANJUNATHA COTTO N AND GINNING FACTORY (2013) 359 ITR 565 TOOK A VIEW THAT IMPOSING OF PENALTY U/ S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT IS BAD IN LAW AND INVALID FOR THE REASON THAT THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE U/S 274 OF THE ACT DOES NOT SPECIFY THE CHARGE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AS TO WHETH ER IT IS FOR CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE P ARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE LD. COUNSEL FURTHER BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE THAT AS AGAIN ST THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT THE REVENUE PREFERRED AN APPEA L IN SLP IN CC NO.11485 OF 2016 AND THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT BY ITS ORDER DAT ED 05.08.2016 DISMISSED THE SLP PREFERRED BY THE DEPARTMENT. THE LD. COUNSEL AL SO BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CA SE OF CIT VS SHRI SAMSON PERINCHERY IN ITA NO.1154 OF 2014 DATED 05.01.2017 WHEREIN THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE KA RNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY (SU PRA) CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT IMPOSITION OF PENALTY ON DEFECTIVE SHOW CAUSE NOTIC E WITHOUT SPECIFYING THE CHARGE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. OUR ATTEN TION WAS ALSO DRAWN TO THE DECISION OF ITAT IN THE CASE OF SUVAPRASANNA BHATTACHARYA VS ACIT IN ITA NO.1303/KOL/2010 DATED 06.11.2015 WHEREIN IDENTICAL PROPOSITION HAS BEEN FOLLOWED BY THE TRIBUNAL. 7. THE LEARNED DR SUBMITTED THAT THE HONBLE CAL CUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF DR.SYAMAL BARAN MONDAL VS. CIT (2011) 244 CTR 631 ( CAL) HAS TAKEN A VIEW THAT SEC.271 DOES NOT MANDATE THAT THE RECORDING OF SATI SFACTION ABOUT CONCEALMENT OF INCOME MUST BE IN SPECIFIC TERMS AND WORDS AND THAT SATISFACTION OF AO MUST REFLECT FROM THE ORDER EITHER WITH EXPRESSED WORDS RECORDED BY THE AO OR BY HIS OVERT ACT AND ACTION. IN OUR VIEW THIS DECISION IS ON THE QU ESTION OF RECORDING SATISFACTION AND NOT IN THE CONTEXT OF SPECIFIC CHARGE IN THE MANDAT ORY SHOW CAUSE NOTICE U/S.274 OF THE ACT. THEREFORE REFERENCE TO THIS DECISION, IN OUR VIEW IS NOT OF ANY HELP TO THE PLEA OF THE REVENUE BEFORE US. ITA NO.956/KOL/2016 JEETMAL CHORARIA A.Y.2010-11 4 8. THE LEARNED DR RELIED ON THREE DECISIONS OF MU MBAI ITAT VIZ., (I) DHANRAJ MILLS PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT ITA NO.3830 & 3833/MUM/2009 DATE D 21.3.2017; (II) EARTHMOVING EQUIPMENT SERVICE CORPORATION VS. DCIT 22(2), MUMBAI, (2017) 84 TAXMANN.COM 51 (III) MAHESH M.GANDHI VS. ACIT VS. A CIT ITA NO.2976/MUM/2016 DATED 27.2.2017. RELIANCE WAS PLA CED ON TWO DECISIONS OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT VIZ., (I) CIT VS. KAUSHAL YA 216 ITR 660(BOM) AND (II) M/S.MAHARAJ GARAGE & CO. VS. CIT DATED 22.8.2017. THIS DECISION WAS REFERRED TO IN THE WRITTEN NOTE GIVEN BY THE LEARNED DR. THIS IS AN UNREPORTED DECISION AND A COPY OF THE SAME WAS NOT FURNISHED. HOWEVER A GIST OF THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN THE DECISION HAS BEEN GIVEN IN THE WRITTEN NOTE FILED B EFORE US. 9. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KAUSHALYA (SUPRA), THE H ONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HELD THAT SECTION 274 OR ANY OTHER PROVISION IN THE ACT OR THE RULES, DO ES NOT EITHER MANDATE THE GIVING OF NOTICE OR ITS ISSUANCE IN A P ARTICULAR FORM. PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE QUASI-CRIMINAL IN NATURE. SECTION 274 CONTAINS THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE OF THE ASSESSEE BEING HEARD BEFORE LEVYING PENALTY. RU LES OF NATURAL JUSTICE CANNOT BE IMPRISONED IN ANY STRAIGHT-JACKET FORMULA. FOR SUST AINING A COMPLAINT OF FAILURE OF THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE ON THE GROUND OF ABSE NCE OF OPPORTUNITY, IT HAS TO BE ESTABLISHED THAT PREJUDICE IS CAUSED TO THE CONCERN ED PERSON BY THE PROCEDURE FOLLOWED. THE ISSUANCE OF NOTICE IS AN ADMINISTRATI VE DEVICE FOR INFORMING THE ASSESSEE ABOUT THE PROPOSAL TO LEVY PENALTY IN ORDE R TO ENABLE HIM TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY IT SHOULD NOT BE DONE. MERE MISTAKE IN THE LANG UAGE USED OR MERE NON-STRIKING OF THE INACCURATE PORTION CANNOT BY ITSELF INVALIDATE THE NOTICE. THE ITAT MUMBAI BENCH IN THE CASE OF DHANRAJ MILLS PVT.LTD. (SUPRA) FOLLOWED THE DECISION RENDERED BY THE JURISDICTIONAL HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF KAUSHALYA (SUPRA) AND CHOSE NOT TO FOLLOW DECISION OF HONBLE KARNATAKA H IGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MANJUNATHA COTTON & GINNING FACTORY (SUPRA). RELIA NCE WAS ALSO PLACED BY THE ITAT MUMBAI IN THIS DECISION ON THE DECISION OF HON BLE PATNA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. MITHILA MOTOR 'S (P.) LTD. [1984] 149 ITR 751 (PATNA) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT UNDER SECTION 274 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, ALL THAT IS REQUIRED IS THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO SHOW CAU SE. NO STATUTORY NOTICE HAS BEEN ITA NO.956/KOL/2016 JEETMAL CHORARIA A.Y.2010-11 5 PRESCRIBED IN THIS BEHALF. HENCE, IT IS SUFFICIENT IF THE ASSESSEE WAS AWARE OF THE CHARGES HE HAD TO MEET AND WAS GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. A MISTAKE IN THE NOTICE WOULD NOT INVALIDATE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. 10. IN THE CASE OF EARTHMOVING EQUIPMENT SERVICE C ORPORATION (SUPRA), THE ITAT MUMBAI DID NOT FOLLOW THE DECISION RENDERED IN THE CASE OF MANJUNATHA COTTON & GINNING FACTORY (SUPRA) FOR THE REASON THAT PENALTY IN THAT CASE WAS DELETED FOR SO MANY REASONS AND NOT SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF DEFECT IN SHOW CAUSE NOTICE U/S.274 OF THE ACT. THIS IS NOT FACTUALLY CORRECT. ONE OF THE PAR TIES BEFORE THE GROUP OF ASSESSEES BEFORE THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MANJ UNATHA COTTON & GINNING (SUPRA) WAS AN ASSESSEE BY NAME M/S.VEERABHADRAPPA SANGAPPA & CO., IN ITA NO.5020 OF 2009 WHICH WAS AN APPEAL BY THE REVENUE. THE TRIBU NAL HELD THAT ON PERUSAL OF THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, I T IS CLEAR THAT IT IS A STANDARD PROFORMA USED BY THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY. BEFORE IS SUING THE NOTICE THE INAPPROPRIATE WORDS AND PARAGRAPHS WERE NEITHER STRUCK OFF NOR DE LETED. THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY WAS NOT SURE AS TO WHETHER SHE HAD PROCEEDED ON THE BASIS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD EITHER CONCEALED ITS INCOME OR HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE DE TAILS. THE NOTICE IS NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENT OF THE PARTICULAR S ECTION AND THEREFORE IT IS A VAGUE NOTICE, WHICH IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO A PATENT NON APPLI CATION OF MIND ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY. FURTHER, IT HELD THAT THE ASSE SSING OFFICER HAD MADE ADDITIONS UNDER SECTION 69 OF THE ACT BEING UNDISCLOSED INVES TMENT. IN THE APPEAL, THE SAID FINDING WAS SET-ASIDE. BUT ADDITION WAS SUSTAINED O N A NEW GROUND, THAT IS UNDER VALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK. SINCE THE ASSESSING AUT HORITY HAD INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS BASED ON THE ADDITIONS MADE UNDER SECTI ON 69 OF THE ACT, WHICH WAS STRUCK DOWN BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY, THE INITIAT ED PENAL PROCEEDINGS, NOLONGER EXISTS. IF THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAD INITIATED PE NAL PROCEEDINGS ON THE BASIS OF THE ADDITION SUSTAINED UNDER A NEW GROUND IT HAS A LEGA L SANCTUM. THIS WAS NOT SO IN THIS CASE AND THEREFORE, ON BOTH THE GROUNDS THE IMPUGNE D ORDER PASSED BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY AS WELL AS THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY WAS SE T-ASIDE BY ITS ORDER DATED 9TH APRIL, 2009. AGGRIEVED BY THE SAID ORDER, THE REVEN UE FILED APPEAL BEFORE HIGH COURT. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT FRAMED THE FOLLOWING QUESTIO N OF LAW IN THE SAID APPEAL VIZ., ITA NO.956/KOL/2016 JEETMAL CHORARIA A.Y.2010-11 6 1. WHETHER THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C ) IN THE PRINTED FORM WITHOUT SPECIFICALLY MENTIONING WHETHER THE PROCEEDINGS ARE INITIATED ON THE GROUND OF CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR ON ACCOUNT OF FURNISHING O F INACCURATE PARTICULARS IS VALID AND LEGAL? 2. WHETHER THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY WAS LEGAL AND VALID? THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT HELD I N THE NEGATIVE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE ON BOTH THE QUESTIONS. THEREFORE THE DECIS ION RENDERED BY THE ITAT MUMBAI IN THE CASE OF EARTHMOVING EQUIPMENT SERVICE CORPOR ATION (SUPRA) IS OF NO ASSISTANCE TO THE PLEA OF THE REVENUE BEFORE US. 11. IN THE CASE OF M/S.MAHARAJ GARAGE & CO. VS. CI T DATED 22.8.2017 REFERRED TO IN THE WRITTEN NOTE GIVEN BY THE LEARNED DR, WHICH I S AN UNREPORTED DECISION AND A COPY OF THE SAME WAS NOT FURNISHED, THE SAME PROPOS ITION AS WAS LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SMT.KAUSHA LYA (SUPRA) APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN REITERATED, AS IS EVIDENT FROM THE EXTRACTS FU RNISHED IN THE WRITTEN NOTE FURNISHED BY THE LEARNED DR BEFORE US. 12. IN THE CASE OF TRISHUL ENTERPRISES ITA NO.384 & 385/MUM/2014, THE MUMBAI BENCH OF ITAT FOLLOWED THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SMT.KAUSHALYA (SUPRA). 13. IN THE CASE OF MAHESH M.GANDHI (SUPRA) THE MUM BAI ITAT THE ITAT HELD THAT THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE MANJUNATHA COTTON & GINNING (SUPRA) WILL NOT BE APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THAT CASE BECAUSE THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHILE INITIATING PENALTY PROCEEDIN GS HAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CONCEALED PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND MERELY BECAUSE IN THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE U/S.274 OF THE ACT, THERE IS NO MENTION WHETHER THE PROCEED INGS ARE FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OR CONCEALING PARTICULARS OF INCOME, TH AT WILL NOT VITIATE THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. IN THE PRESENT CASE THERE IS NO WHISPH ER IN THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT ON THIS ASPECT. WE HAVE POINTED OUT THIS ASPECT IN THE EAR LIER PART OF THIS ORDER. HENCE, THIS DECISION WILL NOT BE OF ANY ASSISTANCE TO THE PLEA OF THE REVENUE BEFORE US. EVEN OTHERWISE THIS DECISION DOES NOT FOLLOW THE RATIO L AID DOWN BY THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MANJUNATHA COTTON & GINNI NG (SUPRA) IN AS MUCH AS THE ITA NO.956/KOL/2016 JEETMAL CHORARIA A.Y.2010-11 7 RATIO LAID DOWN IN THE SAID CASE WAS ONLY WITH REFE RENCE TO SHOW CAUSE NOTICE U/S.274 OF THE ACT. THE HONBLE COURT DID NOT LAY DOWN A P ROPOSITION THAT THE DEFECT IN THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE WILL STAND CURED IF THE INTENTION OF THE CHARGE U/S.271(1) (C ) IS DISCERNIBLE FROM A READING OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN WHICH THE PENALTY WAS INITIATED. 14. FROM THE AFORESAID DISCUSSION IT CAN BE SEEN T HAT THE LINE OF REASONING OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT AND THE HONBLE PATNA HIG H COURT IS THAT ISSUANCE OF NOTICE IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE DEVICE FOR INFORMING TH E ASSESSEE ABOUT THE PROPOSAL TO LEVY PENALTY IN ORDER TO ENABLE HIM TO EXPLAIN AS T O WHY IT SHOULD NOT BE DONE. MERE MISTAKE IN THE LANGUAGE USED OR MERE NON-STRIKING O F THE INACCURATE PORTION CANNOT BY ITSELF INVALIDATE THE NOTICE. THE TRIBUNAL BENCHES AT MUMBAI AND PATNA BEING SUBORDINATE TO THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT AND PA TNA HIGH COURT ARE BOUND TO FOLLOW THE AFORESAID VIEW. THE TRIBUNAL BENCHS AT BANGALORE HAVE TO FOLLOW THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT. AS FAR AS BENCHES OF TRIBUNAL IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS ARE CONCERNED, THERE ARE TWO VI EWS ON THE ISSUE, ONE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE RENDERED BY THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MANJUNATHA COTTON & GINNING (SUPRA) AND OTHER OF TH E HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SMT.KAUSHALYA. IT IS SETTLED LEGAL POSITION THAT WHERE TWO VIEWS ARE AVAILABLE ON AN ISSUE, THE VIEW FAVOURABLE TO THE A SSESSEE HAS TO BE FOLLOWED. WE THEREFORE PREFER TO FOLLOW THE VIEW EXPRESSED BY TH E HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MANJUNATHA COTTON & GINNING (SUPRA). 15. WE HAVE ALREADY OBSERVED THAT THE SHOW CAUSE N OTICE ISSUED IN THE PRESENT CASE U/S 274 OF THE ACT DOES NOT SPECIFY THE CHARGE AGAI NST THE ASSESSEE AS TO WHETHER IT IS FOR CONCEALING PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE U/S 274 OF THE ACT DOES NOT S TRIKE OUT THE INAPPROPRIATE WORDS. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IMP OSITION OF PENALTY CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. THE PLEA OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSE SSEE WHICH IS BASED ON THE DECISIONS REFERRED TO IN THE EARLIER PART OF THIS ORDER HAS T O BE ACCEPTED. WE THEREFORE HOLD THAT IMPOSITION OF PENALTY IN THE PRESENT CASE CANNOT BE SUSTAINED AND THE SAME IS DIRECTED TO BE CANCELLED. ITA NO.956/KOL/2016 JEETMAL CHORARIA A.Y.2010-11 8 16. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 01.12.2017. SD/- SD/- [DR.A.L.SAINI] [ N.V.VASUDEVAN ] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 01.12.2017. [RG SR.PS] COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1.JEETMAL CHORARIA, 86, CANNING STREET, KOLKATA-700 001. 3. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-43, KOLKATA. 4. C.I.T. (A)-13, KOLKATA. 4. C.I.T.-15, KOL KATA. 5. CIT(DR), KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA. TRUE COPY BY ORDER SR. PRIVA TE SECRETARY HEAD OF OFFICE/DDO,, ITAT, KOLKATA BENCHES