MANOJ KUMAR AGRAWAL vs. DY.. C.I.T.-1(1), RAIPUR (CG)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.124/RPR/2015 Assessment Year : 2005-06 Manoj Kumar Agrawal, DCIT- 1(1), Bazarpara, Neora, Raipur (CG). Distt. Raipur, Vs. Raipur (CG).

PAN : ACIPA5818J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee by : Shri R. B. Doshi, CA Department by : Shri P. K. Mishra, CIT-DR Date of hearing : 13-08-2018 Date of pronouncement : 13-08-2018 O R D E R PER R. K. PANDA, AM : This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 06.04.2015 of the ld. CIT(A)- 1, Raipur (CG) relating to assessment year 2005-06. 2. Levy of penalty of Rs.74,550/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Assessing Officer which has been upheld by the ld. CIT(A) is the only issue raised by the assessee in the grounds of appeal. 3. The ld. counsel for the assessee, at the outset, referring to page 22 of the Paper Book drew the attention of the Bench to the notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271 on 31.12.2008. Referring to the said notice, he submitted that the show

2 ITA No.124/RPR/2015

cause notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271 did not define the nature of default i.e.

whether the penalty is levied for concealment of income or for furnishing of

inaccurate particulars of income. He submitted that the Assessing Officer

imposed the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) in this case on the ground that the assessee

has concealed his income and furnished inaccurate particulars of income.

Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of

CIT vs. M/s SSA’S Emerald Meadows vide ITA No.380 of 2015 order dated

23.11.2015, he submitted that the Hon'ble High Court in the said decision,

following the decision in the case of Manjunath Cotton and Ginning Factory

reported in 359 ITR 565, had upheld the decision of the Tribunal cancelling the

penalty and dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue on the ground that the

notice issued by the Assessing Officer u/s 274 r.w.s. 271 is bad in law since it

did not specify under which limb of section 271(1)(c) penalty proceedings have

been initiated. He submitted that the SLP filed by the Revenue has been

dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Referring to various decisions filed

in the Paper Book, he submitted that under identical circumstances various

Benches of the Tribunal are cancelling the penalty so levied where the

inappropriate words are not struck off from the notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271

of the Act. He accordingly submitted that on this preliminarily ground itself the

order of the ld. CIT(A) sustaining the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer

should be set-aside and the penalty should be cancelled.

3 ITA No.124/RPR/2015

CIT(A). He submitted that mere non-striking of the inappropriate words will

not invalidate the initiation of penalty proceedings and the provisions of section

292B/292BB will come to rescue of the Department.

perused the material available on record. A perusal of the notice issued u/s 274

r.w.s. 271 shows that the inappropriate words in the said notice has not been

struck off i.e. the notice does not specify under which limb of section 271(1)(c)

the penalty proceedings had been initiated i.e. whether for concealment of

income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. We find the

Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of M/s SSA’S Emerald Meadows

(supra) has observed as under :-

“3. The Tribunal has allowed the appeal filed by the assessee holding the notice issued by the Assessing Officer under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the 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 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -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.”

Apex Court. Further, the various Benches of the Tribunal following the above

decisions are cancelling the penalty so levied by the Assessing Officer and

4 ITA No.124/RPR/2015

confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) on account of non-striking of the inappropriate

words from the notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271 of the Act. Since in the instant

case, the Assessing Officer has not struck off the inappropriate words in the

notices issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271, therefore, the notice does not specify under

which limb of section 271(1)(c) the penalty proceedings had been initiated i.e.

whether for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of

income. Therefore, the penalty proceedings become bad in law. We, therefore,

set-aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to cancel

the penalty so levied. The appeal filed by the assessee is accordingly allowed.

Order pronounced in the open Court at the time of hearing itself i.e. on this 13th August, 2018.

Sd/- Sd/- (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) (R. K. PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 13-08-2018. Sujeet Copy of order to: - 1) The Appellant 2) The Respondent 3) The CIT 4) The CIT(A) 5) The DR, I.T.A.T., Raipur. By Order //True Copy// Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, Raipur