TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 135X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ta 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 u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act). 3. The Assessee is a partnership firm. A search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Act was carried out in the premises of the Paul Group of cases on 17.1.2012. The assessee is one of the entities in the said group. Notice u/s 153A of the Act was issued on the assessee for various assessment years including the year under appeal. The assessee filed its return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act on 22.3.2011 declaring total income of ₹ 7,61,060/- for the Asst Year 2010-11. The ld AO observed that the assessee had unrecorded sales of ₹ 73,601/- and made an addition to that effect. The ld AO passed an order u/s 153A/143(3) of the Act on 28.3.2014. The ld AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1)(c) of the Act. 4. The explanation given by the assessee for the aforesaid addition was not accepted by the ld AO in the penalty proceedings and the ld AO imposed penalty u/s 271(1)(c ) of the Act in the sum of ₹ 22,743/- . A specific objection was also raised before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Hon ble Supreme Court by its order dated 05.08.2016 dismissed the SLP preferred by the department. The ld AR also brought to our notice the decision of the Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Shri Samson Perinchery in ITA No.1154 of 2014 dated 05.01.2017 wherein the Hon ble Bombay High Court following the decision of the Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning factory (supra) came to the conclusion that imposition of penalty on defective show cause notice without specifying the charge against the assessee 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. 6. 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. 7. 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 simi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... guage 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 Hon ble Bombay High court in the case of Kaushalya (supra) and chose not to follow decision of Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Manjunatha Cotton Ginning Factory (supra). Reliance 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 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 tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ataka High Court held in the negative and against the revenue on both the questions. Therefore the decision rendered by the ITAT Mumbai in the case of Earthmoving Equipment Service Corporation (supra) is of no assistance to the plea of the revenue before us. 11. In the case of M/S.Maharaj Garage Co. Vs. CIT dated 22.8.2017 referred to in the written note given by the learned DR, which is an unreported decision and a copy of the same was not furnished, the same proposition as was laid down by the Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of Smt.Kaushalya (supra) 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 proceeding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
