TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 709X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... For the Appellant : Miss Sweta Sharma, AR Miss Sukanya Dutta, AR For the Respondent : Shri Robin Choudhury, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR ORDER PER SHRI A.T.VARKEY, JM This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-6, Kolkata dated 11.12.2017 for AY 2013-14 against the penalty order passed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) by the AO and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). 3. At the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted before us that the show cause notices issued u/s 274 of the Act r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 30.11.2015 before imposing penalty does not contain the specific charge against the assessee namely as to whether the assessee was guilty of having concealed particulars of income or having furnished inaccurate particulars of income. A copy of the show cause notice u/s 274 of the Act was filed before us which is reproduced above and perusal of the same reveals that DCIT has not struck out the irrelevant portion in the show cause notice and, therefore, the show cause notice does not specify the charge against the assessee as to whether the charge is of concealment of particulars ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s 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 Jeetmal Choraria Vs. ACIT, ITA No. 956/Kol/2016 for AY 2010-11 dated 01.12.2017, wherein the Tribunal has noted as under: 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 context of specific charge in the mandatory 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. 8. The learned DR relied on three decisions of Mumbai ITAT viz., (i) Dhanraj Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT ITA No.3830 3833/Mum/2009 dated 21.3.2017; (ii) Earthmoving Eq ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtunity 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 Authority. Before issuing the notice the inappropriate words and paragraphs were neither struck off nor deleted. 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 details. The notice is not in compliance with the requir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 whisper 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 does not follow the ratio laid down by the Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Manjunatha Cotton Ginning (supra) in as much as the ratio laid down in the said case was only with reference to show cause notice u/s.274 of the Act. The Hon ble Court did not lay down a proposition that the defect in the show cause notice w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
