9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (3) TMI 950X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e deletion of penalty by the Ld. CIT(A) on the reason of invalid notice before imposing penalty and, therefore, the appeal of revenue is dismissed. - Shri A. T. Varkey, JM And Dr. A. L. Saini, AM For the Revenue : Shri Vijay Shankar, CIT, ld.DR For the Assessee : Ms. Sikha Agarwal, ACA, ld.AR ORDER Per Shri A.T.Varkey, JM This captioned appeal by the assessee and Cross Objection preferred by the revenue are against the separate orders of Ld. CIT(A)-20, Kolkata dated 04-02-2019 for AY 2013-14, wherein the ld. CIT(A) was pleased to delete the impugned penalty of ₹ 6,28,05,362/- levied by the AO u/s. 271(1) ( c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to the Act in short). 2. At the time of hearing it is noted that the cross objection filed by the assessee is time barred by 134 days for which the assessee has filed condonation petition. After perusing the same and hearing the ld.DR, we condone the delay of 134 days and admit the cross objection and we dispose off the same. 3. At the outset itself, it was brought to our notice by the ld.AR of the assessee that the assessee has raised cross objection that the ld. CIT(A) has not adjudicated the issue raised therein in r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssue came up before the Hon ble High Court and Apex court and we refer to the decision of the Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. SSA s Emerald Meadows in ITA No.380 of 2015 dated 23.11.2015 wherein the Hon ble Karnataka High Court following its own decision in the case of CIT vs Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning factory (2013) 359 ITR 565 took a view that imposing of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is bad in law and invalid 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. We also note 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. We also note that 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ving of notice or its issuance in a particular form. Penalty proceedings are quasicriminal in nature. Section 274 contains the principle of natural justice of the assessee being heard before levying penalty. Rules of natural justice cannot be imprisoned in any straight-jacket formula. 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase and therefore, on both the grounds the impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority as well as the Assessing Authority was set-aside by its order dated 9th April, 2009. Aggrieved 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ka High Court. As far as benches of Tribunal in other jurisdictions are concerned, there are two views 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 penal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
