A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-7(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S AMBUJA NEOTIA HOLDINGS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

order : November 27th, 2019 O R D E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, AM :- This appeal filed by the revenue is directed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 19, Kolkata, (hereinafter the “ld.CIT(A)”), passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the ‘Act’), dt. 10/04/2019, for the Assessment Year 2009-10.

Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/s. Ambuja Neotia Holdings Pvt. Ltd the relevant decision of the different High Courts vide paragraph no. 14 and 15 of the relevant decision of the different High Courts vide paragraph no. 14 and 15 of the relevant decision of the different High Courts vide paragraph no. 14 and 15 of its order which read as under: its order which read as under: “From the aforesaid discussion it can be seen that the line of reasoning of the “From the aforesaid discussion it can be seen that the line of reasoning of the “From the aforesaid discussion it can be seen that the line of reasoning of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court and the Hon’ble Patna High Court is Hon’ble Bombay High Court and the Hon’ble Patna High Court is that issuance of that issuance of notice is an administrative device for informing the assessee about the proposal to notice is an administrative device for informing the assessee about the proposal to 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. levy penalty in order to enable him to explain as to why it should not be done. 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 Mere mistake in the language used or mere non-striking of the inaccurate p striking of the inaccurate portion cannot by itself invalidate the notice. The Tribunal Benches at Mumbai and Patna cannot by itself invalidate the notice. The Tribunal Benches at Mumbai and Patna cannot by itself invalidate the notice. The Tribunal Benches at Mumbai and Patna being subordinate to the Hon’ble Bombay High Court and Patna High Court are being subordinate to the Hon’ble Bombay High Court and Patna High Court are being subordinate to the Hon’ble Bombay High Court and Patna High Court are bound to follow the aforesaid view. The Tribunal Benches at Bangalore have to bound to follow the aforesaid view. The Tribunal Benches at Bangalore have to bound to follow the aforesaid view. The Tribunal Benches at Bangalore have to follow the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court. As far as benches of ision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court. As far as benches of ision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court. As far as benches of Tribunal in other jurisdictions are concerned, there are two views on the issue, Tribunal in other jurisdictions are concerned, there are two views on the issue, Tribunal in other jurisdictions are concerned, there are two views on the issue, one in favour of the assessee rendered by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the one in favour of the assessee rendered by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the one in favour of the assessee rendered by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Manjunatha Cotton & G case of Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning (supra) and other of the Hon’ble Bombay inning (supra) and other of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Smt. Kaushalya. It is settled legal position that where High Court in the case of Smt. Kaushalya. It is settled legal position that where High Court in the case of Smt. Kaushalya. It is settled legal position that where two views are available on an issue, the view favourable to the assessee has to be two views are available on an issue, the view favourable to the assessee has to be two views are available on an issue, the view favourable to the assessee has to be followed. We, therefore, prefer to follow th followed. We, therefore, prefer to follow the view expressed by the Hon’ble e view expressed by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning (supra). Karnataka High Court in the case of Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning (supra). Karnataka High Court in the case of Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning (supra). We have already observed that the show cause notice issued in the present case We have already observed that the show cause notice issued in the present case We have already observed that the show cause notice issued in the present case u/s 274 of the Act does not specify the charge against the assessee as t u/s 274 of the Act does not specify the charge against the assessee as to whether it o whether it is for concealing particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of is for concealing particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of is for concealing particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The show cause notice u/s 274 of the Act does not strike out the income. The show cause notice u/s 274 of the Act does not strike out the income. The show cause notice u/s 274 of the Act does not strike out the inappropriate words. In these circumstances, we are of the view that imposition of inappropriate words. In these circumstances, we are of the view that imposition of inappropriate words. In these circumstances, we are of the view that imposition of penalty cannot be sustained. The plea of the ld. Counsel for the assessee which is cannot be sustained. The plea of the ld. Counsel for the assessee which is cannot be sustained. The plea of the ld. Counsel for the assessee which is based on the decisions referred to in the earlier part of this order has to be based on the decisions referred to in the earlier part of this order has to be based on the decisions referred to in the earlier part of this order has to be accepted. We, therefore, hold that imposition of penalty in the present case cannot accepted. We, therefore, hold that imposition of penalty in the present case cannot accepted. We, therefore, hold that imposition of penalty in the present case cannot the same is directed to be cancelled.” be sustained and the same is directed to be cancelled.”

4. In our opinion, the decision rendered by the Coordinate Bench in the case of In our opinion, the decision rendered by the Coordinate Bench in the case of In our opinion, the decision rendered by the Coordinate Bench in the case of Jeetmal Choraria vs ACIT (supra) Jeetmal Choraria vs ACIT (supra) is squarely applicable in the present case. We, is squarely applicable in the present case. We, therefore, respectfully follow therefore, respectfully following the said decision of the Coordinate Bench he Coordinate Bench quash the impugned penalty imposed by the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) under section 271(1)(c) of the Act and uphold the order of the uphold the order of the Ld. CIT(A).

Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/s. Ambuja Neotia Holdings Pvt. Ltd Copy of the order forwarded to: opy of the order forwarded to: 1. M/s. Ambuja Neotia Holdings Pvt. Ltd Holdings Pvt. Ltd Block 3B, Ecospace Business Park Block 3B, Ecospace Business Park New Town, Rajarhat Kolkata – 700 156 2. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1), Kolkata