TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (3) TMI 135
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d AO observed that the assessee had unrecorded sales of Rs. 73,601/- and made an addition to that effect. The ld AO passed an order u/s 153A/143(3) of the Act on 28.3.2014. The ld AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1)(c) of the Act. 4. The explanation given by the assessee for the aforesaid addition was not accepted by the ld AO in the penalty proceedings and the ld AO imposed penalty u/s 271(1)(c ) of the Act in the sum of Rs. 22,743/- . A specific objection was also raised before the ld CITA that the ld AO had not specified the charge of offence committed by the assessee i.e whether it had concealed particulars of income or had furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Reliance was also placed on the decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory reported in 359 ITR 565 (Kar). The ld CITA however did not heed to the said argument of the assessee and confirmed the levy of penalty of the ld AO. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us on the following grounds:- 1. For that on the fact and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the penalty of Rs. 22,743/- imposed by the AO u/s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....No.1303/Kol/2010 dated 06.11.2015 wherein identical proposition has been followed by the Tribunal. 6. The ld. DR submitted that it is not mandatory to specify the charge in the show cause notice u/s 274 of the Act. In this regard he placed 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 ou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 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. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he 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 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 & ....