TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (8) TMI 293
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g disposed off by this consolidated order. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- The assessee is a partnership firm. It is engaged in the business of wholesale distribution of pharmaceuticals. For the assessment years 2012-2013 and 2013-2014, returns were filed on 29.09.2012 and 28.09.2013, which were processed u/s 143(1) of the I.T.Act. There was a survey u/s 133A of the I.T.Act conducted in the business premises of the assessee-firm on 25.02.2015 and notice u/s 148 was issued on 31.03.2015 for assessment years 2012-2013 and 2013-2014. Revised returns were filed in response to notice declaring total income of Rs. 21,13,780 and Rs. 22,96,260 for the assessment years 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 respectively. The assessments were ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... times and paid the tax due. The Assessing Officer dropped the penalty proceedings by virtue of the order sheet entry dated 30.09.2016. 4. The Commissioner of Income-tax issued show cause notice on 29.11.2018 by pointing out the dropping of the penalty proceedings on 30.09.2016 was in a routine manner and was not in accordance with the law. The CIT was of the view that there was lack of inquiry by the Assessing Officer before dropping the penalty proceedings. The CIT relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. [243 ITR 83] had held that the order passed by the Assessing Officer by which the penalty proceedings were dropped are erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. According....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rvey. Additional income of Rs. 19,00,000 and Rs. 20,00,000 were voluntarily declared in the returns to make good the defect in accounting the sales and stock. The net amount of income added to the returned total income for A.Y 2012-13 and A.Y 2013-14 come to Rs. 5,15,165/- and Rs. 2,22,127/- which comprised of disallowance of salary, estimated personal use of car and the defect in accounting sales. The appellant has neither concealed particulars of such income nor furnished inaccurate particulars of such income in the returns filed. Hence it is not a fit case to impose penalty and the order of dropping the penalty proceedings is not erroneous. Ground - 2 Direction to pass a speaking penalty order within the time limit spec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he relevant portion in the show cause notices issued u/s 274 on 30/03/2016 for both the years were struck of before the issuance.[ Copies accompany] Hence neither the assessment order nor the show cause notice in this case did specify the charges levelled [(i)whether concealed particulars of income or (ii) furnished inaccurate particulars of income for which the assessee had to show cause] which is a prerequisite for imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c). Omission to mention the specific charges in the show cause notices would make the whole proceeding void. Reliance is placed in this context on the apex court judgment in the case of Dilip N. Shroff (219 ITR 519). In view of the above the dropping of penalty proceedings on 30/09/2016 for ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ific charges in the show cause notice would make the whole proceedings void. The above view taken by the Cochin Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s.Rajadhani Hotels & Tourist Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT [ITA No.175- 180/Coch/2019 - order dated 01.08.2019] by following the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT & Anr. V. M/s.SSA's Emerald Meadows reported in (2016) (8) TMI 1145. The relevant finding of the Cochin Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s.Rajadhani Hotels & Tourist Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. (supra) reads as follows:- "6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record. We have carefully gone through the notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271 of the Act narrated in para 4 of this order. As seen f....