9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 673X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eals by the Assessee against three orders all dated 13.06.2016 of C.I.T.(A)-I, Kolkata relating to A.Y.2006-07 to 2008-09. 2. In all these appeals the assessee has challenged the order of CIT(A) whereby the CIT(A) confirmed the order of the AO imposing penalty on the assessee u/s 271 (1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act). 3. The facts and circumstances under which penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was imposed on the assessee by the AO are identical in all the three appeals of the assessee. The Assessee is a company. It carries on the business of investment and finance. In the course of assessment proceedings for assessment years 2006-07 to 2008-09 the AO noticed that in the current account No.116918 maintained by the assessee with ABN Amro Bank there were huge deposits of money and credit entries. The assessee explained the receipts in the bank account as towards share application money and the withdrawals were explained as investments or refund of share application money. The AO came to the conclusion that the assessee was mainly engaged in providing accommodation entries and deserve income in the form of commission from the beneficiaries of the accommodation entries. The AO ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inst the decision 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 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. ITAT, Kolkata 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. 8. 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. 9. We have considered the submission of the ld. DR, who also filed a written note on this aspect. Similar submissions made by the ld. DR in the case of Shri Jeetmal Choraria vs ACIT in IT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 in the case of M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 case because the AO in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
