TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 833X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shri Amit Agarwal, Advocate ORDER Per Shri A.T.Varkey, JM The appeal filed by the Revenue is against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-20, Kolkata dated 07.11.2016 for AY 2013-14 in respect of deleting the penalty of ₹ 15,45,000/- imposed by the AO u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ).. 2. In this appeal, the Revenue has challenged the order of Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The facts and circumstances under which penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was imposed on the assessee by the AO are that in this case a search and seizure operation was conducted in respect of Agarwal Gourisaria Sub Group of cases on 13.02.2013 and on subsequent dates. The assessee filed her return of income on 01.10.2013 declaring a total income of ₹ 51,19,320/- and assessment was completed on 31.03.2015 u/s. 143(3) of the Act determining at ₹ 51,19,320/-. During the course of search proceedings, the assessee has made disclosure of ₹ 50,00,000/- u/s. 132(4) of the Act. Penalty proceeding was initiated separately on the disclosure amount of ₹ 50,00,000/- u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act being as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Hon ble Karnataka High Court the revenue preferred an appeal in SLP in CC No.11485 of 2016 and the Hon ble Supreme Court by its order dated 05.08.2016 dismissed the SLP preferred by the department. The ld. Counsel 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. 5. Ld. DR vehemently opposed the submission of the Ld. AR and has cited various case laws to oppose the case laws suggested by the Ld. AR. We note that all the case laws cited before us by the Ld. DR has been dealt with elaborately by the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Jee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m to explain as to why it should not be done. Mere mistake in the language 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gs initiated by the Assessing Authority was legal and valid? The Hon ble Karnataka 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 c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
