AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (12) TMI 1350
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mounting to Rs. 6,66,719/-, undisclosed investment in NSC/KVPs along with interest thereon amounting to Rs. 75,272/- and interest income on FDs amounting to Rs. 75,457/-. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) were also initiated by the Assessing Officer and since the explanation offered by the assessee in response to the show-cause notice issued during the course of the said proceedings, was not found acceptable by him, the Assessing Officer proceeded to impose penalty of Rs. 2,92,927/- under section 271(1)(c) being 100% of the tax sought to be evaded by the assessee. 3. On appeal, the ld. CIT(Appeals) confirmed the said penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(Appeals), the assessee has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal. 4. At the time of hearing before us, the ld. counsel for the assessee raised a preliminary issue challenging the very initiation of penalty proceedings by the Assessing Officer on the ground that the show-cause notice issued by him under section 274 without containing the specific charge as to whether the assessee was guilty of having concealed particulars of its income or having furnished inaccurate particula....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t from the order either with expressed words recorded by the Assessing Officer himself or by his overt act and action." 3. The Ld. ITAT Mumbai in its order the case of Trishul Enterprises Vs. DCIT (ITA Nos.384 & 385/Mum/2014 for A.Yrs.2006-07 & 2007-08), Dt.10-02-20 17 dismissed the contention of the assessee regarding failure of the AO to strike off the relevant part of the notice u/s.274 for initiating proceedings u/s.271(I)(c). The ITAT relied upon the judgement of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Smt. Kaushalya (1992) wherein it was held that "mere not striking off specific limb cannot by itself invalidate notice issued u/s. 274 of the Act. The language of the section does not speak about the issuance of notice. All that is required that the assessee be given an opportunity of show cause...........". 4. The Hon'ble Bombay HighCourt(Nagpur Bench) in the case of M/s. Maharaj Garage & Company Vs. CIT in its judgement Dt.22-08-2017, has also held that" 15. The requirement of Section 274 of the Income Tax Act for granting reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter cannot be stretched to the extent of framing a specific charge or asking the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y, not mentioning the reasons in the penalty notice cannot invalidate the penalty proceedings. 7. Hon'ble Mumbai ITAT in the case of Dhanraj Mills (P) Ltd vs ACIT(OSD) Central Range-z, Mumbai on 21 March 2017 has stated As there is no declaration of law which may be governed by Article 141 of the Constitution of India in the case of CIT- Versus - SSA'S Emerald Meadows dismissed by Hon'ble Apex Court, vide SLP (CC No. 11485/2016) on 05/08/2016. The judgment of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT Vs Kaushalya (supra) is still having a binding force on us. Thus, with utmost regards to the judgment of Karnataka High Court in CIT Vs Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (supra) we are bound to follow the judgment of jurisdictional High Court in CIT Vs Kaushalya (supra). Our view also find support from a decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Dhawal K. Jain vs Income Tax Officer (ITA NO.996/Mum/2014) order dated 30/09/2016. With these observations, the argument of Id. counsel of the assessee on the legal/technical ground is rejected. Thus, all these four appeals are, therefore, dismissed and the stand of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ainst 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 Tribunal. 7. The learned DR submitted that the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Dr.Sya....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (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 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 corr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g 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 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 proceedin....