Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “G” MUMBAI
Before: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT & MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL
way of this consolidated order for convenience and avoid repetition way of this consolidated order for convenience and avoid repetition way of this consolidated order for convenience and avoid repetition of facts.
Firstly, we take up the appeal for assessment year 2014 we take up the appeal for assessment year 2014-15. we take up the appeal for assessment year 2014 The grounds raised by the assessee are reproduced as under: The grounds raised by the assessee are reproduced as under: The grounds raised by the assessee are reproduced as under:
The CIT Appeal of National Faceless Appeal Centre has The CIT Appeal of National Faceless Appeal Centre has The CIT Appeal of National Faceless Appeal Centre has erred in confirming the order of ACIT. erred in confirming the order of ACIT.
2. The CIT Appeal National Faceless Appeal The CIT Appeal National Faceless Appeal Centre has The CIT Appeal National Faceless Appeal erred in confirming the Penalty of Rs. 5,42,776/- u/s erred in confirming the Penalty of Rs. 5,42,776/ erred in confirming the Penalty of Rs. 5,42,776/ 271(1)(c). 271(1)(c). 3. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that in the assessment Briefly stated, facts of the case are that in the assessment Briefly stated, facts of the case are that in the assessment completed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 27.12.2016 claim of exemption completed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 27.12.2016 claim of exemption completed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 27.12.2016 claim of exemption of Rs.20,87,787/- u/s 10(38) of the Act for long te u/s 10(38) of the Act for long term capital gain u/s 10(38) of the Act for long te was added to the returned income. The addition made was accepted was added to the returned income. The addition made was was added to the returned income. The addition made was by the assessee and no further appeal was filed. In the assessment by the assessee and no further appeal was filed. In the assessment by the assessee and no further appeal was filed. In the assessment order dated 27.12.2016, the Assessing Officer initiated penalty u/s order dated 27.12.2016, the Assessing Officer initiated penalty u/s order dated 27.12.2016, the Assessing Officer initiated penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. After taking into 271(1)(c) of the Act. After taking into consideration, the submission consideration, the submission of the assessee, the Assessing Officer levied penalty on 29.06.2017. of the assessee, the Assessing Officer levied penalty on 29.06.2017. of the assessee, the Assessing Officer levied penalty on 29.06.2017.
On further appeals, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the penalty levied by On further appeals, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the penalty levied by On further appeals, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer. On the issue of specifying particular of limb the Assessing Officer. On the issue of specifying particular of limb the Assessing Officer. On the issue of specifying particular of limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act i.e. concealment of income or of the Act i.e. concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, the Ld. CIT(A) he Ld. CIT(A), following the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the following the decision of the case of CIT v. Kaushaliya (1994) 75 Taxmann 549 (Bombay) held case of CIT v. Kaushaliya (1994) 75 Taxmann 549 (Bombay) case of CIT v. Kaushaliya (1994) 75 Taxmann 549 (Bombay) as under:
Gautam Puranmal Poddar (HUF) Gautam Puranmal Poddar (HUF) 3 & 584/M/2023 ITA No. 583 & 584/M/2023 “10 (i). Further, 10 (i). Further, with reference to need for specifying with reference to need for specifying the limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act, reliance is the limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act, reliance is the limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act, reliance is placed upon the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High placed upon the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High placed upon the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Kaushaliya(1994) 75 Court in the case of CIT vs. Kaushaliya(1994) 75 Court in the case of CIT vs. Kaushaliya(1994) 75 Taxmann 549 (Bombay) in which it has been held Taxmann 549 (Bombay) in which it has been held Taxmann 549 (Bombay) in which it has been held that mere mista that mere mistake in the language used or mere non ke in the language used or mere non- striking of inaccurate portion, cannot by itself in striking of inaccurate portion, cannot by itself in striking of inaccurate portion, cannot by itself in validate notice us 274 of the Act. Further, the validate notice us 274 of the Act. Further, the validate notice us 274 of the Act. Further, the strength is drawn from the decision of the Hon'ble strength is drawn from the decision of the Hon'ble strength is drawn from the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT, Delhi in the case of Trimurti Engineering Works ITAT, Delhi in the case of Trimurti Engineering Works ITAT, Delhi in the case of Trimurti Engineering Works vs ITO (2012) 2 vs ITO (2012) 25 taxmann.com 363 (Delhi). On the 363 (Delhi). On the similar facts the Hon'ble TAT, Mumbai in the case of similar facts the Hon'ble TAT, Mumbai in the case of similar facts the Hon'ble TAT, Mumbai in the case of Danraj Danraj Danraj Mills Mills Mills Put. Put. Put. Ltd., Ltd., Ltd., ITA ITA ITA No. No. No. 3830, 3830, 3830, 33/Mumbai/2009 has upheld the penalty order 33/Mumbai/2009 has upheld the penalty order 33/Mumbai/2009 has upheld the penalty order passed by the AO. The relevant part of t passed by the AO. The relevant part of the order is he order is reproduced as under: reproduced as under:- “2.16. We have considered the rival contention and 2.16. We have considered the rival contention and 2.16. We have considered the rival contention and gone through the various decisions relied by them. gone through the various decisions relied by them. gone through the various decisions relied by them. We have also gone through the order of penalty We have also gone through the order of penalty We have also gone through the order of penalty passed by AssessingOfficer and the order passed by passed by AssessingOfficer and the order passed by passed by AssessingOfficer and the order passed by Ld. Commissioner of In Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal). We are come Tax (Appeal). We are conscious that any of the party may raise legal issue conscious that any of the party may raise legal issue conscious that any of the party may raise legal issue at this stage, if the same can be emanated from the at this stage, if the same can be emanated from the at this stage, if the same can be emanated from the record of the case. The Hon’ble jurisdictional High record of the case. The Hon’ble jurisdictional High record of the case. The Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT Vs Smt. Kaushalya (supra) while dealing Court in CIT Vs Smt. Kaushalya (supra) while dealing Court in CIT Vs Smt. Kaushalya (supra) while dealing with the similar gr with the similar ground about the limb of charge, ound about the limb of charge, whether mere mistake in language used or mere not whether mere mistake in language used or mere not whether mere mistake in language used or mere not striking off of inaccurate portion cannot by itself striking off of inaccurate portion cannot by itself striking off of inaccurate portion cannot by itself invalidate notice issued under section 274 of the Act. invalidate notice issued under section 274 of the Act. invalidate notice issued under section 274 of the Act. The language of the section does not speak about the The language of the section does not speak about the The language of the section does not speak about the issuance of not issuance of notice. All that is required is that the ice. All that is required is that the assessee be given an opportunity of show cause. The assessee be given an opportunity of show cause. The assessee be given an opportunity of show cause. The issuance of notice is an administrative device for issuance of notice is an administrative device for issuance of notice is an administrative device for informing the assessee about the proposal of levy of informing the assessee about the proposal of levy of informing the assessee about the proposal of levy of penalty in order to enable him to explain why it penalty in order to enable him to explain why it penalty in order to enable him to explain why it should not be should not be levied against him. If it is taken for the levied against him. If it is taken for the sake of argument that mere mistake in the language sake of argument that mere mistake in the language sake of argument that mere mistake in the language in the notice for non in the notice for non-striking off of ‘inaccurate striking off of ‘inaccurate particular’ or marking on ‘concealment of income’ particular’ or marking on ‘concealment of income’ particular’ or marking on ‘concealment of income’ portion cannot by itself invalidate the notice. Entire portion cannot by itself invalidate the notice. Entire portion cannot by itself invalidate the notice. Entire facts and backgrounds thereof are to be kept in mind. and backgrounds thereof are to be kept in mind. and backgrounds thereof are to be kept in mind. Every concealment of fact may ultimately result in Every concealment of fact may ultimately result in Every concealment of fact may ultimately result in Gautam Puranmal Poddar (HUF) Gautam Puranmal Poddar (HUF) 4 & 584/M/2023 ITA No. 583 & 584/M/2023 filing of or furnishing inaccurate particular. It was filing of or furnishing inaccurate particular. It was filing of or furnishing inaccurate particular. It was further argued that no statutory notice has been further argued that no statutory notice has been further argued that no statutory notice has been prescribed in this behalf in the Income tax Act prescribed in this behalf in the Income tax Act prescribed in this behalf in the Income tax Act 2.17. The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in CIT 2.17. The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in CIT 2.17. The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in CIT Versus Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (supra) Versus Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (supra) Versus Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (supra) held that notice under section 274 of the act should held that notice under section 274 of the act should held that notice under section 274 of the act should specifically statethe grounds mentioned in section specifically statethe grounds mentioned in section specifically statethe grounds mentioned in section 271(1)(c) that is, whether it is for concealment of 271(1)(c) that is, whether it is for concealment of 271(1)(c) that is, whether it is for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particular of ome or for furnishing of inaccurate particular of ome or for furnishing of inaccurate particular of income, sending printed form where all the grounds income, sending printed form where all the grounds income, sending printed form where all the grounds mentioned in the section 271 are mentioned would mentioned in the section 271 are mentioned would mentioned in the section 271 are mentioned would not specify the requirement of law, the assessee not specify the requirement of law, the assessee not specify the requirement of law, the assessee should know the grounds which he has to meet should know the grounds which he has to meet should know the grounds which he has to meet specifically specifically. Otherwise, the Principles of Natural . Otherwise, the Principles of Natural Justice Justice Justice are are are offended. offended. offended. On On On the the the basis basis basis of of of such such such proceedings, no penalty could be imposed on the proceedings, no penalty could be imposed on the proceedings, no penalty could be imposed on the assessee. Taking up the penalty proceeding on one assessee. Taking up the penalty proceeding on one assessee. Taking up the penalty proceeding on one limb and finding the assessee guilty on another limp limb and finding the assessee guilty on another limp limb and finding the assessee guilty on another limp is also bad in law. Tho is also bad in law. Though the penalty proceeding ugh the penalty proceeding emanate from proceeding of assessment, they are emanate from proceeding of assessment, they are emanate from proceeding of assessment, they are independent and separate aspect of proceeding. All independent and separate aspect of proceeding. All independent and separate aspect of proceeding. All the other decisions relied by the Ld counsel for the the other decisions relied by the Ld counsel for the the other decisions relied by the Ld counsel for the assessee is based on the decision of CIT Vs assessee is based on the decision of CIT Vs assessee is based on the decision of CIT Vs Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Facto Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (supra), ry (supra), wherein the decision of CIT Vs Kaushlya (supra) was wherein the decision of CIT Vs Kaushlya (supra) was wherein the decision of CIT Vs Kaushlya (supra) was not brought in the notice of coordinate bench of not brought in the notice of coordinate bench of not brought in the notice of coordinate bench of Mumbai Tribunal. Mumbai Tribunal. 2.18. The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in CIT 2.18. The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in CIT 2.18. The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in CIT Versus SSA’S Emerald Meadows in of Versus SSA’S Emerald Meadows in ITA No. 380 of Versus SSA’S Emerald Meadows in ITA No. 380 of 2015 order dated 23/11/2015, whi 2015 order dated 23/11/2015, while dismissing the le dismissing the appeal of Revenue followed the decision of CIT appeal of Revenue followed the decision of CIT appeal of Revenue followed the decision of CIT Versus Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (supra). Versus Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (supra). Versus Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (supra). Against the judgment of Karnataka High Court the Against the judgment of Karnataka High Court the Against the judgment of Karnataka High Court the Revenue filed Special Leave Petition before the Revenue filed Special Leave Petition before the Revenue filed Special Leave Petition before the Hon’ble Apex Court and the same was dismissed Hon’ble Apex Court and the same was dismis Hon’ble Apex Court and the same was dismis vide SLP (CC No. 11485/2016) on 05/08/2016. vide SLP (CC No. 11485/2016) on 05/08/2016. vide SLP (CC No. 11485/2016) on 05/08/2016. There is no There is no dispute to the settled proposition of law that dispute to the settled proposition of law that dispute to the settled proposition of law that dismissal of the Special Leave Petition in limine by dismissal of the Special Leave Petition in limine by dismissal of the Special Leave Petition in limine by Hon’ble Apex Court does not mean that the reasoning Hon’ble Apex Court does not mean that the reasoning Hon’ble Apex Court does not mean that the reasoning Gautam Puranmal Poddar (HUF) Gautam Puranmal Poddar (HUF) 5 & 584/M/2023 ITA No. 583 & 584/M/2023 of the judgment of the High Court against which the of the judgment of the High Court against wh of the judgment of the High Court against wh Special Leave Petition has been filed before this Court Special Leave Petition has been filed before this Court Special Leave Petition has been filed before this Court stands affirmed or the judgment and order impugned stands affirmed or the judgment and order impugned stands affirmed or the judgment and order impugned merges with such order of this Court on dismissal of merges with such order of this Court on dismissal of merges with such order of this Court on dismissal of the petition. It simply means that Apex Court did not the petition. It simply means that Apex Court did not the petition. It simply means that Apex Court did not consider the case for worth examin consider the case for worth examining for the reason, ing for the reason, which may be other than merit of the case. Nor such which may be other than merit of the case. Nor such which may be other than merit of the case. Nor such an order of Apex Court operates as res an order of Apex Court operates as res-judicata. An judicata. An order rejecting the Special Leave Petition at the order rejecting the Special Leave Petition at the order rejecting the Special Leave Petition at the threshold without detailed reasons therefore does not threshold without detailed reasons therefore does not threshold without detailed reasons therefore does not constitute any declaration o constitute any declaration of law or a binding f law or a binding precedent. And the similar view was expressed in precedent. And the similar view was expressed in precedent. And the similar view was expressed in various judgments, viz, various judgments, viz, A. The Workmen of Cochin Port Trust Vs The Board of A. The Workmen of Cochin Port Trust Vs The Board of A. The Workmen of Cochin Port Trust Vs The Board of Trustees of the Cochin Port Trust & Anr AIR 1978 SC Trustees of the Cochin Port Trust & Anr AIR 1978 SC Trustees of the Cochin Port Trust & Anr AIR 1978 SC 1283; 1283; B. Ahmedabad Manufacturing & Calico Printing Co B. Ahmedabad Manufacturing & Calico Printing Co B. Ahmedabad Manufacturing & Calico Printing Co Ltd Vs The Workmen & Anr AIR 1981 SC 960; Vs The Workmen & Anr AIR 1981 SC 960; Vs The Workmen & Anr AIR 1981 SC 960; C. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar & C. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar & C. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. AIR 1986 SC 1780; Ors. AIR 1986 SC 1780; D. Supreme Court Employees’ Welfare Association Vs. D. Supreme Court Employees’ Welfare Association Vs. D. Supreme Court Employees’ Welfare Association Vs. Union of India & Ors. AIR 1990 SC 334; Union of India & Ors. AIR 1990 SC 334; E. Yogendra Narayan Chowdhury & Ors Vs. Union of E. Yogendra Narayan Chowdhury & Ors Vs. Union of E. Yogendra Narayan Chowdhury & Ors Vs. Union of India & Ors AIR 1996 SC 751; India & Ors AIR 1996 SC 751; F. Union of India & Anr. Vs Sher Singh & Ors, AIR F. Union of India & Anr. Vs Sher Singh & Ors, AIR F. Union of India & Anr. Vs Sher Singh & Ors, AIR 1997 SC 1796; 1997 SC 1796; G. V.M. Salgaocar & Bros. (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner G. V.M. Salgaocar & Bros. (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner G. V.M. Salgaocar & Bros. (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax AIR 2000 SC 1623; of Income Tax AIR 2000 SC 1623; H. Saurashtra Oil Mills Association Gujrat Vs. State H. Saurashtra Oil Mills Association Gujrat Vs. State H. Saurashtra Oil Mills Association Gujrat Vs. State of Gujrat & Anr. AIR 200 of Gujrat & Anr. AIR 2002 SC 1130; I. Union of India 2 SC 1130; I. Union of India & Ors Vs. Jaipal Singh (2004) 1 SCC 121; and J. Y. & Ors Vs. Jaipal Singh (2004) 1 SCC 121; and J. Y. & Ors Vs. Jaipal Singh (2004) 1 SCC 121; and J. Y. Satyanarayan Reddy Vs Mandal Revenue Officer, Satyanarayan Reddy Vs Mandal Revenue Officer, Satyanarayan Reddy Vs Mandal Revenue Officer, Andhra Pradesh (2009) 9 SCC 447. Andhra Pradesh (2009) 9 SCC 447. 2.19. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Kunhayammed & 2.19. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Kunhayammed & 2.19. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Kunhayammed & Ors Vs State of Kerala & Anr. AIR 2000 SC 2587, Ors Vs State of Kerala & Anr. AIR 2000 SC 2587, Ors Vs State of Kerala & Anr. AIR 2000 SC 2587, Gautam Puranmal Poddar (HUF) Gautam Puranmal Poddar (HUF) 6 & 584/M/2023 ITA No. 583 & 584/M/2023 considered the similar issue and some of the earlier nsidered the similar issue and some of the earlier nsidered the similar issue and some of the earlier judgments and came to the conclusion that dismissal judgments and came to the conclusion that dismissal judgments and came to the conclusion that dismissal of special leave petition in limine by a non-speaking of special leave petition in limine by a non of special leave petition in limine by a non order may not be a bar for further reconsideration of order may not be a bar for further reconsideration of order may not be a bar for further reconsideration of the case for the reason that the Court might not have the case for the reason that the Court might the case for the reason that the Court might been inclined to exercise its discretion under Article been inclined to exercise its discretion under Article been inclined to exercise its discretion under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The declaration of 136 of the Constitution of India. The declaration of 136 of the Constitution of India. The declaration of law will be governed by Article 141 where the matter law will be governed by Article 141 where the matter law will be governed by Article 141 where the matter has been decided on merit by a speaking judgment has been decided on merit by a speaking judgment has been decided on merit by a speaking judgment as in that case doctrine of merger wo as in that case doctrine of merger would come into uld come into play. This Court laid down the following principles:- play. This Court laid down the following principles: play. This Court laid down the following principles: “(i) Where an appeal or revision is provided against “(i) Where an appeal or revision is provided against “(i) Where an appeal or revision is provided against an order passed by a court, tribunal or any other an order passed by a court, tribunal or any other an order passed by a court, tribunal or any other authority before superior forum and such superior authority before superior forum and such superior authority before superior forum and such superior forum modifies, reverses or affirms forum modifies, reverses or affirms the decision put in the decision put in issue before it, the decision by the subordinate forum issue before it, the decision by the subordinate forum issue before it, the decision by the subordinate forum merges in the decision by the superior forum and it is merges in the decision by the superior forum and it is merges in the decision by the superior forum and it is the latter which subsists, remains operative and is the latter which subsists, remains operative and is the latter which subsists, remains operative and is capable of enforcement in the eye of law. (ii) The capable of enforcement in the eye of law. (ii) The capable of enforcement in the eye of law. (ii) The jurisdiction jurisdiction conferred conferred by by Article Article 136 136 of of the the Constitution is divisible into two stages. The first Constitution is divisible into two stages. The first Constitution is divisible into two stages. The first stage is up to the disposal of prayer for special leave stage is up to the disposal of prayer for special leave stage is up to the disposal of prayer for special leave to file an appeal. The second stagecommences if and to file an appeal. The second stagecommences if and to file an appeal. The second stagecommences if and when the leave to appeal is granted and the special when the leave to appeal is granted and the special when the leave to appeal is granted and the special leave petition is co leave petition is converted into an appeal. (iii) Doctrine nverted into an appeal. (iii) Doctrine of merger is not a doctrine of universal or unlimited of merger is not a doctrine of universal or unlimited of merger is not a doctrine of universal or unlimited application. application. application. It It It will depend will depend will depend on on on the nature of the nature of the nature of jurisdiction exercised by the superior forum and the jurisdiction exercised by the superior forum and the jurisdiction exercised by the superior forum and the content or subject content or subject-matter of challenge laid or capable matter of challenge laid or capable of of being being laid l aid shall shall be be determinative determinative of of the the applicability of merger. The superior jurisdiction applicability of merger. The superior jurisdiction applicability of merger. The superior jurisdiction should be capable of reversing, modifying or affirming should be capable of reversing, modifying or affirming should be capable of reversing, modifying or affirming the order put in issue before it. Under Article 136 of the order put in issue before it. Under Article 136 of the order put in issue before it. Under Article 136 of the Constitution the Supreme Court may reverse, the Constitution the Supreme Court may reverse, the Constitution the Supreme Court may reverse, modify or aff modify or affirm the judgment-decree or order decree or order appealed against while exercising its appellate appealed against while exercising its appellate appealed against while exercising its appellate jurisdiction and not while exercising the discretionary jurisdiction and not while exercising the discretionary jurisdiction and not while exercising the discretionary jurisdiction disposing of petition for special leave to jurisdiction disposing of petition for special leave to jurisdiction disposing of petition for special leave to appeal. The doctrine of merger can therefore be appeal. The doctrine of merger can therefore be appeal. The doctrine of merger can therefore be applied to the applied to the former and not to the latter. (iv) An former and not to the latter. (iv) An order refusing special leave to appeal may be a order refusing special leave to appeal may be a order refusing special leave to appeal may be a nonspeaking order or a speaking one. In either case it nonspeaking order or a speaking one. In either case it nonspeaking order or a speaking one. In either case it does not attract the doctrine of merger. An order does not attract the doctrine of merger. An order does not attract the doctrine of merger. An order Gautam Puranmal Poddar (HUF) Gautam Puranmal Poddar (HUF) 7 & 584/M/2023 ITA No. 583 & 584/M/2023 refusing special leave to appeal does not stand refusing special leave to appeal does not stand refusing special leave to appeal does not stand substituted in pl substituted in place of the order under challenge. All ace of the order under challenge. All that it means is that the Court was not inclined to that it means is that the Court was not inclined to that it means is that the Court was not inclined to exercise its discretion so as to allow the appeal being exercise its discretion so as to allow the appeal being exercise its discretion so as to allow the appeal being filed. (v) If the order refusing leave to appeal is a filed. (v) If the order refusing leave to appeal is a filed. (v) If the order refusing leave to appeal is a speaking order, i.e., gives reasons for refusing the speaking order, i.e., gives reasons for refusing the speaking order, i.e., gives reasons for refusing the grant of leave, then the order has two implications. nt of leave, then the order has two implications. nt of leave, then the order has two implications. Firstly, the statement of law contained in the order is Firstly, the statement of law contained in the order is Firstly, the statement of law contained in the order is a declaration of law by the Supreme Court within the a declaration of law by the Supreme Court within the a declaration of law by the Supreme Court within the meaning of Article 141 of the Constitution. Secondly, meaning of Article 141 of the Constitution. Secondly, meaning of Article 141 of the Constitution. Secondly, other than the declaration of law, whatever is stated other than the declaration of law, whatever other than the declaration of law, whatever in the order are the findings recorded by the Supreme in the order are the findings recorded by the Supreme in the order are the findings recorded by the Supreme Court which would bind the parties thereto and also Court which would bind the parties thereto and also Court which would bind the parties thereto and also the court, tribunal or authority in any proceedings the court, tribunal or authority in any proceedings the court, tribunal or authority in any proceedings subsequent thereto by way of judicial discipline, the subsequent thereto by way of judicial discipline, the subsequent thereto by way of judicial discipline, the Supreme Court being the Apex Cour Supreme Court being the Apex Court of the country. t of the country. But, this does not amount to saying that the order of But, this does not amount to saying that the order of But, this does not amount to saying that the order of the court, tribunal or authority below has stood the court, tribunal or authority below has stood the court, tribunal or authority below has stood merged in the order of the Supreme Court rejecting merged in the order of the Supreme Court rejecting merged in the order of the Supreme Court rejecting the special leave petition or that the order of the the special leave petition or that the order of the the special leave petition or that the order of the Supreme Court is the only order Supreme Court is the only order binding as res binding as res- judicata in subsequent proceedings between the judicata in subsequent proceedings between the judicata in subsequent proceedings between the parties.” 2.20. As there is no declaration of law which parties.” 2.20. As there is no declaration of law which parties.” 2.20. As there is no declaration of law which may be governed by Article 141 of the Constitution of may be governed by Article 141 of the Constitution of may be governed by Article 141 of the Constitution of India in the case of CIT Versus SSA’S Emerald India in the case of CIT Versus SSA’S Emerald India in the case of CIT Versus SSA’S Emerald Meadows dismissed by Hon’ble Apex Cour Meadows dismissed by Hon’ble Apex Court, vide SLP t, vide SLP (CC No. 11485/2016) on 05/08/2016. The judgment (CC No. 11485/2016) on 05/08/2016. The judgment (CC No. 11485/2016) on 05/08/2016. The judgment of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT Vs of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT Vs of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT Vs Kaushalya (supra) is still having a binding force on Kaushalya (supra) is still having a binding force on Kaushalya (supra) is still having a binding force on us. Thus, with utmost regards to the judgment of us. Thus, with utmost regards to the judgment of us. Thus, with utmost regards to the judgment of Karnataka High Court in CIT Vs Manjunatha Cotton Karnataka High Court in CIT Vs Manjunatha Cotto Karnataka High Court in CIT Vs Manjunatha Cotto & Ginning Factory (supra) we are bound to follow the & Ginning Factory (supra) we are bound to follow the & Ginning Factory (supra) we are bound to follow the judgment of jurisdictional High Court in CIT Vs judgment of jurisdictional High Court in CIT Vs judgment of jurisdictional High Court in CIT Vs Kaushalya (supra). Our view also find support from a Kaushalya (supra). Our view also find support from a Kaushalya (supra). Our view also find support from a decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Dhawal K. Jain vs Income Tax Officer (ITA case of Dhawal K. Jain vs Income Tax Officer (IT case of Dhawal K. Jain vs Income Tax Officer (IT No.996/Mum/2014) order dated 30/09/2016. With No.996/Mum/2014) order dated 30/09/2016. With No.996/Mum/2014) order dated 30/09/2016. With these observations, the argument of ld. counsel of the these observations, the argument of ld. counsel of the these observations, the argument of ld. counsel of the assessee on the legal/technical ground is rejected. assessee on the legal/technical ground is rejected. assessee on the legal/technical ground is rejected. Thus, all these four appeals are, therefore, dismissed Thus, all these four appeals are, therefore, dismissed Thus, all these four appeals are, therefore, dismissed and the stand of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax and the stand of the Ld. Commissioner of Incom and the stand of the Ld. Commissioner of Incom (Appeal) is affirmed. (Appeal) is affirmed.
Gautam Puranmal Poddar (HUF) Gautam Puranmal Poddar (HUF) 8 & 584/M/2023 ITA No. 583 & 584/M/2023 (ii) The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of New The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of New The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of New Holland Tractors (India) (P.) Ltd. Vs CIT in [2014] 49 Holland Tractors (India) (P.) Ltd. Vs CIT in [2014] 49 Holland Tractors (India) (P.) Ltd. Vs CIT in [2014] 49 taxmann.com taxmann.com 573 (Delhi)/[2015] 228 Taxman 66 573 (Delhi)/[2015] 228 Taxman 66 (Delhi/ 2015] 275 TR 291 (De (Delhi/ 2015] 275 TR 291 (Delhi) wherein it has been lhi) wherein it has been held that at times and it is fairly common, the charge held that at times and it is fairly common, the charge held that at times and it is fairly common, the charge of of of concealment concealment concealment and and and 'furnishing 'furnishing 'furnishing of of of inaccurate inaccurate inaccurate particulars' may overlap. particulars' may overlap.
11. Respectfully following the decisions of the Hon'ble 11. Respectfully following the decisions of the Hon'ble 11. Respectfully following the decisions of the Hon'ble High Courts and Hon'ble ITAT (supra), as discussed High Courts and Hon'ble ITAT (supra), as discuss High Courts and Hon'ble ITAT (supra), as discuss above, it is held that the penalty notice issued by the above, it is held that the penalty notice issued by the above, it is held that the penalty notice issued by the AO us 274 of the Act and penalty order us 271(1)(c) of AO us 274 of the Act and penalty order us 271(1)(c) of AO us 274 of the Act and penalty order us 271(1)(c) of the Act were not bad in law and the same are held as the Act were not bad in law and the same are held as the Act were not bad in law and the same are held as valid. Accordingly, in view of the above detailed valid. Accordingly, in view of the above detailed valid. Accordingly, in view of the above detailed discussion, on merits also it is held t discussion, on merits also it is held that the AO was hat the AO was justified in levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act at justified in levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act at justified in levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act at Rs.5,42,776/ Rs.5,42,776/- in this case and the same is hereby in this case and the same is hereby confirmed. Ground of appeal
Nos. 1 to 5 are confirmed. Ground of appeal Nos. 1 to 5 are confirmed. Ground of appeal Nos. 1 to 5 are dismissed. dismissed.”
5. Before us, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee referred to the Before us, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee referred to the Before us, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee referred to the appeal setpage No. 52 and submitted that in the notice issued u/s No. 52 and submitted that in the notice issued u/s No. 52 and submitted that in the notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, the Assessing Officer has not the Assessing Officer has not stricken/indicated the relevant limb for levy of the penalty the relevant limb for levy of the penalty the relevant limb for levy of the penalty. He submitted that since since the charges for levy of penalty were of penalty were not specified in the notice issued the notice issued, the action of levy of penalty u/s the action of levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is vitiated 271(1)(c) of the Act is vitiated , in view of the decision of the Hon’ble n view of the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh v. Bombay High Court in the case of Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh v. Bombay High Court in the case of Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh v. Dy. CIT [2021] 434 ITR 1 (Bom) Dy. CIT [2021] 434 ITR 1 (Bom), which has been further relied by which has been further relied by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Ganga Iron & on’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Ganga Iron & on’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Ganga Iron & Steel Trading Co. CIT [2022] 135 taxmann.com 244 (Bombay). Steel Trading Co. CIT [2022] 135 taxmann.com 244 (Bombay). Steel Trading Co. CIT [2022] 135 taxmann.com 244 (Bombay).
6. On the contrary, the Ld. DR relied on the order of the lower On the contrary, the Ld. DR relied on the order of the lower On the contrary, the Ld. DR relied on the order of the lower authorities and referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High authorities and referred to the decision of the Hon’ble authorities and referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Gautam Puranmal Poddar (HUF) Gautam Puranmal Poddar (HUF) 9 & 584/M/2023 ITA No. 583 & 584/M/2023 case of New Holland Tractors (India) (P.) Ltd. v. CIT New Holland Tractors (India) (P.) Ltd. v. CIT Court in the case of in [2014] 49 taxmann.com 573 (Delhi) in [2014] 49 taxmann.com 573 (Delhi) which was was relied upon by the Ld. CIT(A).
We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue-in- dispute and perused the relevant material on record. We find that dispute and perused the relevant material on record. We fi dispute and perused the relevant material on record. We fi the Ld.CIT(A) has decided the issue of non the Ld.CIT(A) has decided the issue of non-striking of relevant limb striking of relevant limb for levy of the penalty i.e. either concealment of the income or for levy of the penalty i.e. either concealment of the income or for levy of the penalty i.e. either concealment of the income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, following the decision ollowing the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case o of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. f CIT v. Kaushaliya (supra). We find that the Hon’ble full Bench of the Bombay High (supra). We find that the Hon’ble full Bench of the Bombay High (supra). We find that the Hon’ble full Bench of the Bombay High Court in the case of Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh (supra) has Court in the case of Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh (supra) has Court in the case of Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh (supra) has considered the finding in the case of Smt. Kaushaliya (supra) and considered the finding in the case of Smt. Kaushaliya (supra) and considered the finding in the case of Smt. Kaushaliya (supra) and overruled the said decision holding that defect in overruled the said decision holding that defect in the notice of not the notice of not striking of the relevant limb vitiate the penalty proceedings.The striking of the relevant limb vitiate the penalty proceedings striking of the relevant limb vitiate the penalty proceedings Hon’ble Court held that primary burden lies Hon’ble Court held that primary burden lies on on the Revenue to specify the charges of penalty in notice. T specify the charges of penalty in notice. The Hon’ble Court further he Hon’ble Court further observed that prima facie opinion in the observed that prima facie opinion in the assessment order translate assessment order translate in action only through the statutory notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) action only through the statutory notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) action only through the statutory notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act and therefore, these proceedings must stand on its own. of the Act and therefore, these proceedings must stand on its own. of the Act and therefore, these proceedings must stand on its own. Thus, the assessee must be informed on the ground the assessee must be informed on the ground of penalty the assessee must be informed on the ground proceedings, only during the sta only during the statutory notices and omnibus notice tutory notices and omnibus notice suffers from the vice of vagueness. More particulars, a penal suffers from the vice of vagueness. More particulars, a penal suffers from the vice of vagueness. More particulars, a penal provision, even with civil consequences, must be construed provision, even with civil consequences, must be construed provision, even with civil consequences, must be construed strictly,and ambiguity, if any, must be resolved in the affected nd ambiguity, if any, must be resolved in the affected nd ambiguity, if any, must be resolved in the affected Gautam Puranmal Poddar (HUF) Gautam Puranmal Poddar (HUF) 10 & 584/M/2023 ITA No. 583 & 584/M/2023 assessee’s favour. The Hon’ble Juris assessee’s favour. The Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case dictional High Court in the case of Ganga Iron & Steel Trading Co. (supra) have further observed as of Ganga Iron & Steel Trading Co. (supra) have further observed as of Ganga Iron & Steel Trading Co. (supra) have further observed as under:
“8. We may at the outset refer to the judgment of the 8. We may at the outset refer to the judgment of the 8. We may at the outset refer to the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in Mohd. Farhan (supra) Full Bench of this Court in Mohd. Farhan (supra) Full Bench of this Court in Mohd. Farhan (supra) wherein this precise question was 8 ITL5.2016(J) wherein this precise question was 8 ITL5.2016( wherein this precise question was 8 ITL5.2016( considered and answered. The said question reads considered and answered. The said question reads considered and answered. The said question reads as under: as under: 1. If the assessment order clearly records satisfaction 1. If the assessment order clearly records satisfaction 1. If the assessment order clearly records satisfaction for imposing penalty on one or the other, or both for imposing penalty on one or the other, or both for imposing penalty on one or the other, or both grounds mentioned in grounds mentioned in Section 271(1)(c), does a mere , does a mere defect in the notice defect in the notice-not striking off the irrelevant not striking off the irrelevant matter matter-vitiate the penalty proceedings? 9. After considering various decisions of the Hon'ble 9. After considering various decisions of the Hon'ble 9. After considering various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and of this Court including the Supreme Court and of this Court including the Supreme Court and of this Court including the decision in Dilip Shroff (supra) the Full Bench decision in Dilip Shroff (supra) the Ful decision in Dilip Shroff (supra) the Ful answered the aforesaid question as under: answered the aforesaid question as under: "181. It does. The primary burden lies on the "181. It does. The primary burden lies on the "181. It does. The primary burden lies on the Revenue. In the assessment proceedings, it forms an Revenue. In the assessment proceedings, it forms an Revenue. In the assessment proceedings, it forms an opinion, prima facie or otherwise, to launch penalty opinion, prima facie or otherwise, to launch penalty opinion, prima facie or otherwise, to launch penalty proceedings against the assessee. But that translates proceedings against the assessee. But that translates proceedings against the assessee. But that translates into nto nto action action action only only only through through through the the the statutory statutory statutory notice notice notice under Section 271(1)(c), read with Section 274 Section 274 of the IT Act. True, the assess the IT Act. True, the assess- ment proceedings form ment proceedings form the ba the basis for the penalty pro- ceedings, but they are ceedings, but they are not composite proceedings to draw strength from not composite proceedings to draw strength from not composite proceedings to draw strength from each other. Nor can each cure the other's defect. A each other. Nor can each cure the other's defect. A each other. Nor can each cure the other's defect. A penalty proceeding is a corollary; nev penalty proceeding is a corollary; nev- ertheless, it ertheless, it must stand on its own. These proceedings culminate must stand on its own. These proceedings culminate must stand on its own. These proceedings culminate under a different statutory scheme that remains er a different statutory scheme that remains er a different statutory scheme that remains distinct from the assessment proceedings. Therefore, distinct from the assessment proceedings. Therefore, distinct from the assessment proceedings. Therefore, the assessee must be informed of the grounds of the the assessee must be informed of the grounds of the the assessee must be informed of the grounds of the penalty proceedings only through statutory notice. An penalty proceedings only through statutory notice. An penalty proceedings only through statutory notice. An omnibus notice suffers from the vice of vagueness. omnibus notice suffers from the vice of vagueness. omnibus notice suffers from the vice of vagueness.
More particularly, a penal provision, even with 82. More particularly, a penal provision, even with 82. More particularly, a penal provision, even with civil consequences, must be construed strictly. And civil consequences, must be construed strictly. And civil consequences, must be construed strictly. And Gautam Puranmal Poddar (HUF) Gautam Puranmal Poddar (HUF) 11 & 584/M/2023 ITA No. 583 & 584/M/2023 ambiguity, if any, must be resolved in the affected ambiguity, if any, must be resolved in the affected ambiguity, if any, must be resolved in the affected assessee's favour. assessee's favour.
Therefore, we answer the first question to the 183. Therefore, we answer the first question to the 183. Therefore, we answer the first question to the effect that Goa Dourado Promo effect that Goa Dourado Promotions and other cases tions and other cases 9 ITL5.2016(J) have adopted an approach more in 9 ITL5.2016(J) have adopted an approach more in 9 ITL5.2016(J) have adopted an approach more in consonance with the statutory scheme. That means consonance with the statutory scheme. That means consonance with the statutory scheme. That means we must hold that Kaushalya does not lay down the we must hold that Kaushalya does not lay down the we must hold that Kaushalya does not lay down the correct proposition of law." correct proposition of law." It is thus clear from the law as laid down that even if It is thus clear from the law as laid down that even if It is thus clear from the law as laid down that even if there was an order recording satisfaction for ere was an order recording satisfaction for ere was an order recording satisfaction for imposing penalty on one or the other, or on both imposing penalty on one or the other, or on both imposing penalty on one or the other, or on both grounds as mentioned in grounds as mentioned in Section 271(1)(c) Section 271(1)(c) of the said Act, if the show cause notice suffers from the said Act, if the show cause notice suffers from the said Act, if the show cause notice suffers from the vice of vag vice of vagueness the same would vitiate such notice. ueness the same would vitiate such notice.
We find that the law as laid down by the Full 10. We find that the law as laid down by the Full 10. We find that the law as laid down by the Full Bench applies on all fours to the facts of the present Bench applies on all fours to the facts of the present Bench applies on all fours to the facts of the present case as in the show cause notice dated 12.02.2008, case as in the show cause notice dated 12.02.2008, case as in the show cause notice dated 12.02.2008, the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax is not clear the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax is not clear the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax is not clear as to whether there was concealment of particulars of to whether there was concealment of particulars of to whether there was concealment of particulars of income or that the Assessee had furnished inaccurate income or that the Assessee had furnished inaccurate income or that the Assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income. We therefore find that issuance particulars of income. We therefore find that issuance particulars of income. We therefore find that issuance of such show cause notice without specifying as to of such show cause notice without specifying as to of such show cause notice without specifying as to whether the Assessee had concealed particulars of whether the Assessee had concealed particulars whether the Assessee had concealed particulars his income or had furnished inaccurate particulars of his income or had furnished inaccurate particulars of his income or had furnished inaccurate particulars of the same has resulted in vitiating the show cause the same has resulted in vitiating the show cause the same has resulted in vitiating the show cause notice. notice. Heavy reliance was placed by the learned counsel for Heavy reliance was placed by the learned counsel for Heavy reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the Revenue on the decision in Mak Data Private the Revenue on the decision in Mak Data Private the Revenue on the decision in Mak Data Private Limited (supra) to urge that the penalt Limited (supra) to urge that the penalty contemplated y contemplated by Section 271 Section 271 (1) (c) of the said Act was in the (1) (c) of the said Act was in the nature of civil liability and mens rea was not nature of civil liability and mens rea was not nature of civil liability and mens rea was not essential therein. The decision in Dilip Shroff (supra) essential therein. The decision in Dilip Shroff (supra) essential therein. The decision in Dilip Shroff (supra) having been held as not laying down g having been held as not laying down good law in ood law in Dharmendra Textile 10 ITL5.2016(J) Processors Ltd. Dharmendra Textile 10 ITL5.2016(J) Processors Ltd. Dharmendra Textile 10 ITL5.2016(J) Processors Ltd. (supra), it was submitted that the show cause notice (supra), it was submitted that the show cause notice (supra), it was submitted that the show cause notice issued in the present proceedings was liable to be issued in the present proceedings was liable to be issued in the present proceedings was liable to be upheld. It may be noted that all the decisions relied upheld. It may be noted that all the decisions relied upheld. It may be noted that all the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the upon by the learned counsel for the Revenue were Revenue were considered by the Full Bench while answering the considered by the Full Bench while answering the considered by the Full Bench while answering the issues referred to it on reference. The Full Bench issues referred to it on reference. The Full Bench issues referred to it on reference. The Full Bench Gautam Puranmal Poddar (HUF) Gautam Puranmal Poddar (HUF) 12 & 584/M/2023 ITA No. 583 & 584/M/2023 having considered these decisions and having having considered these decisions and having having considered these decisions and having answered the question as regards defect in the notice answered the question as regards defect in the notice answered the question as regards defect in the notice under Section 271(1)(c) of the said Act resulting in of the said Act resulting in vitiating the penalty proceedings, we find ourselves vitiating the penalty proceedings, we find ourselves vitiating the penalty proceedings, we find ourselves bound by the answers given by the Full Bench. It bound by the answers given by the Full Bench. It bound by the answers given by the Full Bench. It would not be permissible for us to disregard this would not be permissible for us to disregard this would not be permissible for us to disregard this aspect and take a different view of the matter. aspect and take a different view of the matt aspect and take a different view of the matt Accordingly substantial question of law no. III is Accordingly substantial question of law no. III is Accordingly substantial question of law no. III is answered by holding that since the show cause answered by holding that since the show cause answered by holding that since the show cause notice dated 12.02.2008 does not indicate whether notice dated 12.02.2008 does not indicate whether notice dated 12.02.2008 does not indicate whether there was concealment of particulars of income or there was concealment of particulars of income or there was concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of incorrect particulars of such income, the furnishing of incorrect particulars of such income, the furnishing of incorrect particulars of such income, the same would vitiate the penalty proceedings. same would vitiate the penalty proceedings. same would vitiate the penalty proceedings.
Since it has been found that the show cause 11. Since it has been found that the show cause 11. Since it has been found that the show cause notice dated 12.02.2008 that was issued to the notice dated 12.02.2008 that was issued to the notice dated 12.02.2008 that was issued to the Assessee was vague and the penalty pro Assessee was vague and the penalty pro- - ceedings initiated on that basis were vitiated, it would not be initiated on that basis were vitiated, it would not be initiated on that basis were vitiated, it would not be necessary to necessary to answer substantial questions of law as answer substantial questions of law as framed at serial nos. I and II. This is for the reason framed at serial nos. I and II. This is for the reason framed at serial nos. I and II. This is for the reason that the said substantial questions pertain to the that the said substantial questions pertain to the that the said substantial questions pertain to the merits of the adjudication of the proceedings merits of the adjudication of the proceedings merits of the adjudication of the proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the said Act. Once it is of the said Act. Once it is found that the show cause notice dated 12.02.2008 found that the show cause notice dated 12.02.2008 found that the show cause notice dated 12.02.2008 issued to the Assessee 11 ITL5.2016(J) was not in issued to the Assessee 11 ITL5.2016(J) was not in issued to the Assessee 11 ITL5.2016(J) was not in accordance with law, the orders passed thereon accordance with law, the orders passed thereon accordance with law, the orders passed thereon would automatic cease to operate. would automatic cease to operate.
In view of the answer given to t 12. In view of the answer given to the substantial he substantial question of law no.III, the impugned order passed by question of law no.III, the impugned order passed by question of law no.III, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal in I.T.(SS)A.No.05/Nag/ 2011 dated the Tribunal in I.T.(SS)A.No.05/Nag/ 2011 dated the Tribunal in I.T.(SS)A.No.05/Nag/ 2011 dated 10.07.2015 10.07.2015 10.07.2015 is is is set set set aside. aside. aside. Income Income Income Tax Tax Tax Appeal Appeal Appeal No.5/2016 is allowed with no order as to costs. No.5/2016 is allowed with no order as to costs. No.5/2016 is allowed with no order as to costs.
Respectfully Respectfully Respectfully following following following the the the decision decision decision of of of the the the Hon’ble Hon Hon Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh (supra) and Ganga Iron & Steel Trading Co. (supra) Ganga Iron & Steel Trading Co. (supra) Ganga Iron & Steel Trading Co. (supra),we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue-in-dispute and delete the dispute and delete the Gautam Puranmal Poddar (HUF) Gautam Puranmal Poddar (HUF) 13 & 584/M/2023 ITA No. 583 & 584/M/2023 penalty levied by the Assessing Officer. The grounds of appeal of the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer. The grounds of penalty levied by the Assessing Officer. The grounds of assessee for AY 2014 assessee for AY 2014-15 are allowed.
9. The grounds raised in for assessment The grounds raised in ITA No. 584/M/2023 for assessment The grounds raised in ITA No. 584/M/2023 for assessment year 2015-16 are reproduced as under: 16 are reproduced as under:
1. The CIT Appeal of National Faceless Appeal Centre has The CIT Appeal of National Faceless Appeal Centre has The CIT Appeal of National Faceless Appeal Centre has erred in confirming the order of ACIT. erred in confirming the order of ACIT.
2. The CIT Appeal National Faceless Appeal Centre has The CIT Appeal National Faceless Appeal Centre has The CIT Appeal National Faceless Appeal Centre has erred in confirming the Penalty of Rs. erred in confirming the Penalty of Rs. 4,28,153 4,28,153/- u/s 271(1)(c). 271(1)(c). 10. Facts and circumstances and the issue raised being identical Facts and circumstances and the issue raised being identical Facts and circumstances and the issue raised being identical to assessment year 2014 to assessment year 2014-15 and therefore to have consistency in 15 and therefore to have consistency in our decision, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue-in-dispute is set aside and penalty levied by the Ld. Assessing Officer is deleted set aside and penalty levied by the Ld. Assessing Officer is deleted set aside and penalty levied by the Ld. Assessing Officer is deleted as particular limb i.e. concealment of the income furnishing i.e. concealment of the income furnishing inaccurate particulars of income inaccurate particulars of income , not specified in the notice , not specified in the notice for levying the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The grounds appeal of evying the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The grounds appeal of evying the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The grounds appeal of the assessee are accordingly allowed. the assessee are accordingly allowed.
11. In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed. In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed. In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on nounced in the open Court on 28/04/2023. /04/2023. Sd/- Sd/ Sd/- (KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL) (OM PRAKASH KANT OM PRAKASH KANT) JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 28/04/2023 Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S. Copy of the Order forwarded to Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant Gautam Puranmal Poddar (HUF) Gautam Puranmal Poddar (HUF) 14 & 584/M/2023 ITA No. 583 & 584/M/2023