TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 960X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l of the assessee and set aside the order of penalty - Decided in favour of assessee - I.T.A. No. 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 of 2018 - - - Dated:- 9-5-2018 - Hon'ble Shri P.K. Jaiswal And Hon'ble Shri S.K. Awasthi, JJ. Ms. Veena Mandlik, Advocate for the appellant ORDER Per P. K. Jaiswal, J. This order shall also govern the disposal of I.T.A. No.12 of 2018, I.T.A. No.13 of 2018, I.T.A. No.14 of 2018, I.T.A. No.10 of 2018, I.T.A. No.9 of 2018, since the common question of law is involved in all these appeals, therefore, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. For the sake of convenience, the facts are borrowed from I.T.A.No.11 of 2018. 2. These appeals under Section 260-A of the Incom ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Act of 1961 on 18.12.2009 by accepting return income under Section 153A for the assessment year 2002-03. During course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee has shown additional income (Rs.9,28,400/-) due to search hence, penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act of 1961 was initiated for the assessment year 2002-03. The Assessing Officer, noted that the assessee has offered an additional income of ₹ 9,28,400/- in the return of income filed under Section 153A of the Act of 1961. Since the said income was not declared in the return filed under Section 139, hence, the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act of 1961. The Assessing Officer held t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of facts and heard together and all the six appeals are being disposed of by passing a consolidated order on 11.8.2017. The ground raised before the ITAT, was that the imposition of penalty is illegal in as much as vague and cryptic show-cause notice was issued to the assessee under Section 274 of the Act of 1961, without making him aware of the specific charge levied against him and, therefore, in view of the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT V/s. Manjunatha Cotton Ginning Factory, (2013) 359 ITR 565 (Kar), the penalty so imposed by the Assessing Officer deserve to be deleted. 6. The learned Tribunal relying on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. V/s. CIT, (1998) 229 ITR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant for presuming charges levelled against him and in such situation, it cannot be said that an effective opportunity of being heard was given to the appellant as contemplated under Section 274 of the Act of 1961. Thus, the penalty proceedings were initiated without specifying any particulars or specific charge against the assessee in either the assessment order or even the penalty notice. It is important to point out that no charge either of concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars was made in the assessment orders in all these cases. The perusal of the assessment order would show that it was stated that penalty proceedings are initiated under Section 271(1)(c) and under Section 271(AAA). 8. In the case o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w as it did not specify which limb of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act of 1961, the penalty proceedings had been initiated, i.e., whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal while allowing the appeal of the assessee, had relied on the decision of the Division Bench of Karnataka High Court decision in the case of CIT V/s. Manjunatha Cotton Ginning Factory (supra). It is further pointed out that the SLP filed by the Deptt. before the Apex Court on 5.8.2016 in the matter of CIT V/s. SSA'S Emerald Meadows (supra) was dismissed. In the case of CIT V/s. Suresh Chandra Mittal, (2000) 251 ITR 9 (SC) , the Apex Court has upheld the decision of M.P. High Court wherein, in similar circumstance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arned ITAT has decided all these appeals by composite order dated 11.8.2017. It is covered in para 5 of the Circular No.21 of 2015 dated 10.12.2015 and, therefore, the present appeals have been filed. 11. On due consideration of the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant, so also considering the fact that the ground mentioned in show-cause notice would not satisfy the requirement of law, as notice was not specific, we are of the view that the learned Tribunal has rightly relying on the decision of CIT V/s. Manjunatha Cotton Ginning Factory (supra) and CIT V/s. SSA'S Emerald Meadows (supra) rightly allowed the appeal of the assessee and set aside the order of penalty imposed by the authorities. No substantial question of l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
