9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 302X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the tune of Rs. 34,25,000/- in A.Y.2007-08 and Rs. 23,25,000/- in A.Y.2012-13. The assessee vide its letter 05.12.2013 submitted as follows :- i)For A.Y.2007-08 the loan from M/s. Paul Brothers to the tune of Rs. 23,25,000/- for which the assessee filed confirmation. With regard to difference of Rs. 11,00,000/- (34,25,000/- - 23,25,000/-) the assessee submitted that it was income earned by the assessee from undisclosed sources and the same was offered to tax in A.Y.2007-08. ii)As far as A.Y.2012-13 is concerned the assessee submitted that the entire loan from M/s. Paul Brothers amounting to Rs. 23,25,000/- relating to income from undisclosed sources which was offered to tax in A.Y.2012-1. 3. Based on the above letter of the assessee the AO brought to tax a sum of Rs. 11,00,000/- in A.Y.2007-08 and Rs. 23,25,000/- in A.Y.2012-13 as unsecured loan offered as undisclosed income of the assessee. 4. In respect of the aforesaid additions in the course of assessment proceedings the AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for A.Y.2007-08 and 2012-13 respectively. The AO imposed penalty in Al.Y.2007-08 and 2012-13 holding that the assessee furnished inaccurate particu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aced 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 similar arguments of the ld. DR in the following paragraphs : "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 Equipment Servic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otice 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 requirement of the particular section and therefore it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AT 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 whispher 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 will stand cured if the intention of the charge u/s.271(1) (c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
