TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (9) TMI 535
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... regarding addition of undisclosed investment of Rs. 10,50,000/-. Therefore, the amount of Rs. 10,50,000/- was added back by the AO to the total income of the assessee. The AO further found from the AIR information that the assesses had not shown an amount of TDS of Rs. 2,34,691/- and had also not taken the amount of Rs. 56,58,506/- under the head 'Security Charges receipt. Therefore, the AO added back the said two amounts of Rs. 10,50,000/- and Rs. 56,58,506/- to the total income of the assessee as Undisclosed Income and Unexplained Investment respectively. Thereafter penalty notice u/s. 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 13.03.2013 was also served on the assessee. Since no explanation had been forthcoming from the assessee in this regard the AO imposed penalty of Rs. 20,72,930/- being 100% of the tax sought to be evaded uy/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Aggrieved the assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A), who deleted the penalty as imposed by the AO. Aggrieved, revenue is before us. 3. At the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted before us that the show cause notices issued u/s 274 of the Act r.w.s. 271 of the Act dated 13.03.2013 before imposing penalty does not....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al proposition has been followed by the Tribunal. Our attention was also drawn to a recent judgment of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Pr. CIT- 19 Vs. Dr. Murari Mohan Koley, ITAT No. 306 of 2017, GA No.2968 of 2017 dated 18.07.2018 wherein also the Hon'ble High Court has upheld the above proposition of law and dismissed the appeal of the revenue. 5. Ld. DR vehemently opposed the submission of the Ld. AR and has cited various case laws to oppose the case laws suggested by the Ld. AR. We note that all the case laws cited before us by the Ld. DR has been dealt with elaborately by the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Jeetmal Choraria Vs. ACIT, ITA No. 956/Kol/2016 for AY 2010-11 dated 01.12.2017, wherein the Tribunal has noted as under: "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 v....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 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 th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 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 whisper 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 ....