TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (12) TMI 44
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion 271(1)(c) of the Act for AY 2011-12 and 2012-13 respectively. We note from the notice for AY 2011-12 which dated 30.01.2014 as well as for AY 2012-13 notice dated 19.01.2015 that Assessing Officer has not stricken out charge/fault which are not applicable in the case of assessee i.e. whether the assessee has concealed the particulars of its income or it has furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. Since both the faults/charges are given in the notice, according to ld. A.R the notice proposing penalty are invalid and therefore all the consequential action initiated on an invalid notice is bad in law as held by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of in the case of CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (2013) 359 ITR 565(Kar) which decision was followed by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. M/s SSA's Emerald Meadows dated 23.11.2015. According to ld. Counsel the SLP preferred by the revenue against the decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court of Manjunatha (supra) was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. We note that the assessee has raised a legal issue of penalty levied after issuing invalid penalty notice by relying on the decisio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... income. Further we note that as against the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court, the revenue preferred an appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court [SLP in CC No.11485 of 2016] and the Apex Court by its order dated 05.08.2016 dismissed the SLP preferred by the department. Further we note 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. We also note the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Dr. Murari Mohan Koley (supra) upheld the same view of Karnataka High Court (surpa). We also note the decision of ITAT in the case of Suvaprasanna Bhattacharya vs ACIT in ITA No.1303/Kol/2010 dated 06.11.2015 wherein identical legal proposition has been followed by the Tribunal. 6. Ld. DR vehemently opposed the action suggested by us and has cited various case laws to oppose the case ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ceedings 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 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....