J.P TOBACO PRODUCTA PVT. LTD. vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - SAGAR,
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BENCH “DB” JABALPUR
Before: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE
PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM
These appeals by the assessee are directed against two separate orders dated 21.03.2016 and 16.03.2016 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-1, Jabalpur [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2002-03 and 2003-04 respectively in relation to penalty levied by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). In the grounds raised in both the assessment years, the assessee has challenged levy of
JB Tobacco Products Pvt. Ltd. 2 ITA Nos. 187 & 188/JAB/2016 ITA
the penalty by the Assessing Officer. The assessee also raised the penalty by the Assessing Officer. The assessee als the penalty by the Assessing Officer. The assessee als additional ground in both these appeals that charges for levy of the additional ground in both these appeals that charges for levy of the additional ground in both these appeals that charges for levy of the penalty are not specific in the notices issued and therefore, the penalty are not specific in the notices issued and therefore, the penalty are not specific in the notices issued and therefore, the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer is liable to be quashed. penalty levied by the Assessing Officer is liable to be quashed. penalty levied by the Assessing Officer is liable to be quashed.
We have heard rivals submission of the part We have heard rivals submission of the parties and perused ies and perused the relevant material on record. In support of additional ground, the the relevant material on record. In support of additional ground, the the relevant material on record. In support of additional ground, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee has filed a copy of the notices issued Ld. Counsel of the assessee has filed a copy of the notices issued Ld. Counsel of the assessee has filed a copy of the notices issued u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act r.w.s. 274 of the Act dated 30.12.2008 in u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act r.w.s. 274 of the Act dated 30.12.2008 in u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act r.w.s. 274 of the Act dated 30.12.2008 in both the appeals. On perusal of thos both the appeals. On perusal of those notices, we find that the e notices, we find that the Assessing Officer has non Assessing Officer has non-striken of relevant charges and has not ken of relevant charges and has not specified whether the penalty was initiated for concealment of specified whether the penalty was initiated for concealment of specified whether the penalty was initiated for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. We find that income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. We find that income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. We find that the Hon’ble Karnataka High Cour the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of t in the case of Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory (Karnataka High Court)(2013) CTR Cotton and Ginning Factory (Karnataka High Court) Cotton and Ginning Factory (Karnataka High Court) 153 (Kar) has deleted the deleted the penalty in view of non-striking of striking of relevant limb for levy of the penalty in the notice issued u/s 274 of the Act. limb for levy of the penalty in the notice issued u/s 274 of the Act. limb for levy of the penalty in the notice issued u/s 274 of the Act. The Hon’ble High Court held that show cause notice u/s 274 was The Hon’ble High Court held that show cause notice u/s 274 was The Hon’ble High Court held that show cause notice u/s 274 was defective as it does not spelled out the ground on which penalty is defective as it does not spelled out the ground on which penalty is defective as it does not spelled out the ground on which penalty is sought to be imposed and consequently penalty sought to be imposed and consequently penalty was cancelled. The was cancelled. The Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court ,Indore Bench in the case of Indore Bench in the case of Pr. CIT v. Kulwant Singh Bhatia (2018) 304 CTR (MP) 103, Pr. CIT v. Kulwant Singh Bhatia (2018) 304 CTR (MP) 103 Pr. CIT v. Kulwant Singh Bhatia (2018) 304 CTR (MP) 103 following the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the following the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the following the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Manjunatha Cotton Ginning Factory (supra) h Manjunatha Cotton Ginning Factory (supra) h Manjunatha Cotton Ginning Factory (supra) held that notice should be specific to the charges. The relevant finding of the should be specific to the charges. The relevant finding of the should be specific to the charges. The relevant finding of the
JB Tobacco Products Pvt. Ltd. 3 ITA Nos. 187 & 188/JAB/2016 ITA
Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court (supra) is reproduced as Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court (supra) is reproduced as Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court (supra) is reproduced as under:
“11. On due consideration of the arguments of the learned 11. On due consideration of the arguments of the learned 11. On due consideration of the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant, so also considering the fa counsel for the appellant, so also considering the fact that the ct that the ground mentioned in show ground mentioned in show-cause notice would not satisfy the cause notice would not satisfy the requirement of law, as notice was not specific, we are of the requirement of law, as notice was not specific, we are of the requirement of law, as notice was not specific, we are of the view that the learned Tribunal has rightly relying on the decision view that the learned Tribunal has rightly relying on the decision view that the learned Tribunal has rightly relying on the decision of CIT V/s. Manjunatha Cotton Ginning Factory (supra) a of CIT V/s. Manjunatha Cotton Ginning Factory (supra) and CIT nd CIT V/s. SSA'S Emerald Meadows (supra) rightly allowed the appeal V/s. SSA'S Emerald Meadows (supra) rightly allowed the appeal V/s. SSA'S Emerald Meadows (supra) rightly allowed the appeal of the assessee and set aside the order of penalty imposed by of the assessee and set aside the order of penalty imposed by of the assessee and set aside the order of penalty imposed by the authorities. No substantial question of law is arising in these the authorities. No substantial question of law is arising in these the authorities. No substantial question of law is arising in these appeals. appeals. appeals. ITA.No(s).9/2018, ITA.No(s).9/2018, ITA.No(s).9/2018, 10/2018, 10/2018, 10/2018, 11/2018, 11/2018, 11/2018, 12/2018, 12/2018, 12/2018, 13/2018 and 14/2018, filed by the appellant have no merit and 2018 and 14/2018, filed by the appellant have no merit and 2018 and 14/2018, filed by the appellant have no merit and are hereby dismissed. are hereby dismissed.” 2.1 Since in the instant case, the Since in the instant case, the Assessing Officer has not stri Assessing Officer has not striken out the relevant limb for levy of the penalty and th the relevant limb for levy of the penalty and th the relevant limb for levy of the penalty and therefore notice being defective, respectfully followin espectfully following the finding of the Hon’ble g the finding of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court Jurisdictional High Court, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute is set aside and the penalties and the penalties levied by the Assessing Officer levied by the Assessing Officer are cancelled.
In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed.
Order pronounced under Rule 34(4) of the ITAT Rules, 1963 by way Order pronounced under Rule 34(4) of the ITAT Rules, 1963 by way Order pronounced under Rule 34(4) of the ITAT Rules, 1963 by way of result of appeal displayed on the Notice Board of result of appeal displayed on the Notice Board at ITAT Office, Jabalpur at ITAT Office, Jabalpur on 20/10/2023.
Sd/ Sd/- Sd/ Sd/- (PAVAN KUMAR GADALE PAVAN KUMAR GADALE) (OM PRAKASH KANT PRAKASH KANT) JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 20/10/2023 Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S.
JB Tobacco Products Pvt. Ltd. 4 ITA Nos. 187 & 188/JAB/2016 ITA
Copy of the Order forwarded to Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. BY ORDER, BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Assistant Registrar) (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai ITAT, Mumbai
JB Tobacco Products Pvt. Ltd. 5 ITA Nos. 187 & 188/JAB/2016 ITA
Date Initials Original dictation pad is enclosed at Original dictation pad is enclosed at the end of file 1. Draft dictated on: Draft dictated on: 12.10.2023 Sr. PS/PS 2. Draft placed before author: Draft placed before author: 12.10.2023 Sr. PS/PS 3. Draft proposed & placed before the Draft proposed & placed before the JM/AM second member: 4. Draft discussed/approved by Second Draft discussed/approved by Second JM/AM Member: 5. Approved Draft comes to the Sr. Approved Draft comes to the Sr. Sr. PS/PS PS/PS: 6. Order pronounced on: Order pronounced on: Sr. PS/PS 7. File sent to the Bench Clerk: File sent to the Bench Clerk: 8. Date on which file goes to the Head which file goes to the Head Sr. PS/PS Clerk: 9. Date on which file goes to AR Date on which file goes to AR 10. Date of Dispatch of order Date of Dispatch of order
