TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 1030X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (A)-18, Kolkata relating to A.Y.2011-12. 2. In this appeal the assessee has challenged the order of CIT(A) whereby the CIT(A) confirmed the order of AO imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act). 3. The Assessee is an individual. For A.Y.2011-12 the assessee filed return of income declaring total income of ₹ 19,26,750/-. The source of income declared in the return of income was income under the head Salary which the assessee received from his employer M/s. Unitech Wireless (Tamil Nadu) Pvt. Ltd. In the course of assessment proceedings it transpired that the assessee has not shown his salary of ₹ 15,31,426/- which the assessee had received during the previous year from his previous employer M/s. Vodafone Essar Spacetel Ltd. Besides the above interest income of ₹ 6,048/- was also not declared in the return of income. The AO passed order u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 25.10.2013 and added the income not disclosed by the assessee to the total income of the assessee. In respect of the additions made in the course of assessment proceedings as above, the AO initiated penalty proceedings against the assessee u/s 271 (1)(c) of the Act. 4. In t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e cannot be sustained. Our attention 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 ld. DR submitted that it is not mandatory to specify the charge in the show cause notice u/s 274 of the Act. In this regard he placed reliance on certain judicial pronouncements. 8. We have considered the rival submissions. Similar submissions made by the ld. DR in the case of Shri Jeetmal Choraria vs ACIT in ITA No.956/Kol/2016 order dated 01.12.2017 and this tribunal dealt with this similar arguments of the ld. DR in the following manner : 7. The learned DR submitted that the Hon ble Calcutta 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 satisfaction 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 question of recording satisfaction and not in the co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 cause. No statutory notice has been 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 Corporation (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 parties before the group of Assessees before the Karnataka High Court in the case of Manjunatha 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 Tribunal held that on perusal of the notice issued under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, it is clear that it is a standard proforma used by the Assessing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) appears to have been reiterated, as is evident from the extracts furnished 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 Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of Smt.Kaushalya (supra). 13. In the case of Mahesh M.Gandhi (supra) the Mumbai ITAT the ITAT held that the decision of the Hon ble 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 proceedings 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 proceedings are for furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealing particulars of income, that will not vitiate the penalty proceedings. In the present case there is no whispher in the order of assessment on this aspect. We have pointed out this aspect in the earlier 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 do ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
