9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 176X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the present case cannot be disturbed and, therefore, we confirm the order of CIT(A) and dismiss both the appeals of the Revenue. - I.T.A. No. 2522/Kol/2018 And I.T.A. No. 2523/Kol/2018 - - - Dated:- 1-7-2019 - Shri A. T. Varkey, JM And Dr. A. L. Saini, AM For the Appellant : Shri Radhey Shyam, CIT, DR And Shri Shankar Halder, JCIT, For the Respondent : Shri Miraj D. Shah, AR ORDER PER SHRI A. T. VARKEY, JM: Both these appeals filed by assessee are against the separate orders of Ld. CIT(A)-21, Kolkata dated 14.09.2018 for AYs 2008-09 and 2011-12 in respect of deleting the penalty imposed by the AO u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). Since grounds are common and facts are identical, we dispose of both these appeals by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience by taking the appeal for AY 2008-09 as the lead case and the result of which will be following for other year also. 2. In this appeal the revenue has challenged the orders of CIT(A) in deleting the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The facts and ci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nvalid for the reason that the show cause notice u/s 274 of the Act does not specify the charge against the assessee as to whether it is for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The ld. Counsel further brought to our notice that as against 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 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 T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... For sustaining a complaint of failure of the Principles of natural justice on the ground of absence of opportunity, it has to be established that prejudice is caused to the concerned person by the procedure followed. The issuance of notice is an administrative device for informing the assessee about the proposal to levy penalty in order to enable him 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. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the said order, the revenue filed appeal before High Court. The Hon ble High Court framed the following question of law in the said appeal viz., 1. Whether the notice issued under Section 271(1)(c) in the printed form without specifically mentioning whether the proceedings are initiated on the ground of concealment of income or on account of furnishing of inaccurate particulars is valid and legal? 2. Whether the proceedings 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 th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the issue, one in favour of the Assessee rendered by the Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Manjunatha Cotton Ginning (supra) and other of the Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of Smt.Kaushalya. It is settled legal position that where two views are available on an issue, the view favourable to the Assessee has to be followed. We therefore prefer to follow the view expressed by the Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Manjunatha Cotton Ginning (supra). 15. We have already observed that the show cause notice issued in the present case u/s 274 of the Act does not specify the charge against the assessee as to whether it is for concealing particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The show cause notice u/s 274 of the Act does not strike out the inappropriate words. In these circumstances, we are of the view that imposition of penalty cannot be sustained. The plea of the ld. Counsel for the assessee which is based on the decisions referred to in the earlier part of this order has to be accepted. We therefore hold that imposition of penalty in the present case cannot be sustained and the same is directed to be cancel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
