9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 445X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t dated 10.12.2010 is untenable as it suffers from the vice of non-application of mind - Decided in favour of assessee. - I.T.A. Nos. 4463 to 4466/Mum/2018 - - - Dated:- 27-11-2019 - Shri Rajesh Kumar, AM And Shri Amarjit Singh, JM For the Assessee : Shri Rakesh Jotwani (AR) For the Revenue : Mrs. (DR) ORDER PER BENCH: The assessee has filed the above mentioned appeals against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-57, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A) ] relevant to the A.Ys. 1997-98 to 2001-02 in which the penalty levied by the AO has been ordered to be confirmed. ITA. NO.4463/M/2018 2. The assessee has filed the present appeal against the order dated 15.06.2018 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-57, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A) ] relevant to the A.Y. 1997-98 in which the penalty levied by the AO has been ordered to be confirmed. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds: - 1 On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le hence the order of the CIT(A) confirming the penalty order of the AO is wrong against law and facts and is liable to be set aside. In support of these contentions the Ld. Representative of the assessee has placed reliance upon the law settled in ITA. No.1154/M/2014 in the case of CIT-11 Vs. Samson Perinchery and the order of the ITAT, Mumbai Bench in ITA. No.2555/M/2012 vide order dated 28.04.2017 titled as Meherjee Cassinath Holdings P. Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Circle-4(2). However, on the other hand, the Ld. Representative of the Department has refuted the said contentions. The copy of notice dated 13.03.2015 is on the file in which the Assessing Officer nowhere specify any limb to levy the penalty because none of the charge was tick off in the notice. It is not in dispute that the penalty u/s 271(c) of the Act is leviable on account of the concealment of particular of income and on account of furnishing the inaccurate particulars of income. Both have different connotations. In this regard, the Hon ble Supreme Court has appreciated the distinction between both the limb in the case Dilip N. Shroff 161 taxman 218 (SC). As per the record, the assessment order speaks about ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n placed on record and the learned representative canvassed that the same has been issued by the Assessing Officer in a standard proforma, without striking out the irrelevant clause. In other words, the notice refers to both the limbs of Sec. 271(1)(c) of the Act, namely concealment of the particulars of income as well as furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Quite clearly, non-striking-off of the irrelevant limb in the said notice does not convey to the assessee as to which of the two charges it has to respond. The aforesaid infirmity in the notice has been sought to be demonstrated as a reflection of non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer, and in support, reference has been made to the following specific discussion in the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dilip N. Shroff (supra):- 83. It is of some significance that in the standard proforma used by the Assessing Officer in issuing a notice despite the fact that the same postulates that inappropriate words and paragraphs were to be deleted, but the same had not been done. Thus, the Assessing Officer himself was not sure as to whether he had proceeded on the basis that the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1126 of 2014 dated 5.1.2017 (supra) and the decision of the Tribunal holding levy of penalty in such circumstances being bad, has been approved. 11. Apart from the aforesaid, the ld. CIT-DR made an argument based on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Smt. Kaushalya Others, 216 ITR 660 (Bom.) to canvass support for his plea that non-striking off of the irrelevant portion of notice would not invalidate the imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. We have carefully considered the said argument set-up by the ld. CIT-DR and find that a similar issue had come up before our coordinate Bench in the case of Dr. Sarita Milind Davare (supra). Our coordinate Bench, after considering the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Smt. Kaushalya Ors., (supra) as also the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dilip N. Shroff (supra) and Dharmendra Textile Processors, 306 ITR 277 (SC) deduced as under :- 12. A combined reading of the decision rendered by Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of Smt. B Kaushalya and Others (supra) and the decision rendered by Hon‟ble Su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case of Dilip N. Shroff (supra) is to prevail. Following the decision of our coordinate Bench in the case of Dr. Sarita Milind Davare (supra), we hereby reject the aforesaid argument of the ld. CIT-DR. 13. Apart from the aforesaid discussion, we may also refer to the one more seminal feature of this case which would demonstrate the importance of non-striking off of irrelevant clause in the notice by the Assessing Officer. As noted earlier, in the assessment order dated 10.12.2010 the Assessing Officer records that the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act are to be initiated for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. However, in the notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act of even date, both the limbs of Sec. 271(1)(c) of the Act are reproduced in the proforma notice and the irrelevant clause has not been struck-off. Quite clearly, the observation of the Assessing Officer in the assessment order and non-striking off of the irrelevant clause in the notice clearly brings out the diffidence on the part of Assessing Officer and there is no clear and crystallised charge being conveyed to the assessee u/s 271(1)(c), which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
