TULALA SHANKER, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-4(4), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH “A-SMC”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 242 & 243/Hyd/2017 A.Ys: 1988-89 & 1989-90 Tulala Shankar, Hyderabad. vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-4(4), Hyderabad. PAN- AATPT 4537E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri A. Srinivas Shri M. Naveen Revenue by : Date of hearing : 10-05-2018 Date of pronouncement : 10-05-2018 ORDER Both these appeals are filed by the assessee directed against a common order the Ld. CIT(A), passed u/s 250 of the IT Act, 1961 (the Act), wherein the order passed by the Assessing Officer (A.O) u/s 271(1)(c) of the ‘Act’ has been confirmed. The assessee has filed the following additional grounds of appeal, which are common in both the appeals under consideration: “1. The levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) , is bad in law and liable to be quashed as the Assessing Officer omitted to explicitly mention whether the penalty proceedings are being initiated for furnishing of inaccurate particulars or that for concealment of income. 2. Any other ground which the appellant might urge either before or at the time of hearing.” 1.1 As these are legal grounds and all the facts are on record, I admit these grounds.

2 ITA Nos. 242 & 243/Hyd/2017 Shri Tulala Shankar 2. After hearing rival contentions, I find that the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs M/s SSA’s Emerald Meadows, ITA No. 380 of 2015 judgment dated 23.11.2015 had at para 3 and 4 held as follows:

“3. The Tribunal has allowed the appeal filed by the assessee holding the notice issued by the A.O u/s 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act to be bad in law as it did not specify which limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty proceedings had been initiated i.e., whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The Tribunal, while allowing the appeal of the assessee, has relied on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in the case of CIT Vs. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory (2013) 359 ITR 565. 4. In our view, since the matter is covered by judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, we are of the opinion, no substantial question of law arises in this appeal for determination by this Court. The appeal is accordingly dismissed”. 2.1 The Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order in SLP No. 11485/2016 dated 05.08.2016 in the case of CIT Vs M/s SSA’s Emerald Meadows, ordered as follows:

“Delay condoned We do not find any merit in this petition. The special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of”. 2.2 Hence, the issue in question is no more res-integra.

2.3 The assessee has filed the copies of the notice issued u/s 274 of the Act r.w.s 271(1)(c) for both these impugned assessment years which are in paper book. The fourth para of the notices, reads as under:

“Have concealed the particulars of your income furnished, inaccurate particulars of such income”

3 ITA Nos. 242 & 243/Hyd/2017 Shri Tulala Shankar 2.4 Thus it is clear that the notice did not specify the limb of Sec. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, under which penalty proceedings have been initiated. Hence, respectfully following the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court (supra) on this issue, I cancel the orders of penalty in both these cases for both the years as bad in law. 3. In the result both these appeals of the assessee are allowed. Pronounced in the open court on 10th May, 2018.

Sd/- (J. SUDHAKAR REDDY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Hyderabad, Dated: 10th May, 2018. KRK 1) Shri T. Shankar, Advocate & Tax Consultant, D. No. 3-6-130/2/1, Flat No. 201, Street No. 4, Venkateshwara Apartments, Himayatnagar, Hyderabad – 500 029. 2) ITO, Ward- 4(4), Hyderabad. 3) CIT(A) -5, Hyderabad. 4) The Pr.CIT, - 1, Hyderabad. 5) The Departmental Representative, I.T.A.T., Hyderabad. 6) Guard File