Jyothirmoy Yamsani, Hyderabad, Hyderabad v. DCIT, Circle-1, Warangal, Warangal

ITA 1519/HYD/2016 | 1999-2000
Pronouncement Date: 28-11-2017 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 151922514 RSA 2016
Assessee PAN AAOPY7315A
Bench Hyderabad
Appeal Number ITA 1519/HYD/2016
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 17 day(s)
Appellant Jyothirmoy Yamsani, Hyderabad, Hyderabad
Respondent DCIT, Circle-1, Warangal, Warangal
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 28-11-2017
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Tags 271(1)(c)
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 28-11-2017
Date Of Final Hearing 11-07-2017
Next Hearing Date 11-07-2017
First Hearing Date 11-07-2017
Assessment Year 1999-2000
Appeal Filed On 11-11-2016
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH A - SMC HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI D. MANMOHAN VICE PRESIDENT ITA NO. 1519 /HYD/201 6 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1999 - 20 00 JYOTHIRMOY YAMSANI HYDERABAD . PAN AAOPY7315A VS. DCIT CIRCLE - 1 WARANGAL . (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) A SSESSEE BY : SHRI S. RAMA RAO REVENUE BY : SHRI V. SREEKAR DATE OF HEARING : 14 - 09 - 201 7 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28 - 11 - 2017 ORDER PER D. MA NMOHAN VICE PRESIDENT: THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST ORDER PASSED BY CIT(A) - 3 HYDERABAD AND IT PERTAINS TO A.Y 1999 - 20 00. L EVY OF PENALTY OF RS. 1 40 000/ - U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT IS CHALLENGED BEFORE THE TRIBUNA L O N THE G ROUND THAT THE ACTION OF A.O IN TREATING THE PEAK CASH CREDIT OF RS. 5 50 000/ - AS CONCEALED INCOME IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 2. THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF RUNNING A XEROX MACHINE. H E ADMITTED TOTAL INCOME O F RS. 7 57 350/ - ON 30 - 06 - 1999 WHICH WAS ACCEPTED BY A.O . SUBSEQUENTLY IT CAME TO THE 2 ITA NO. 1519/HYD/2016 JYOTHIRMOY HYD . NOTICE OF THE DEPARTMENT THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE A NUMBER OF TRANSACTIONS BY CASH DEPOSITS AND WITHDRAWALS IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR. IT WAS FO UND THAT THERE WERE TOTAL DE PO SITS OF RS. 10 49 150/ - IN CANARA B ANK AT K UNDHANBAGH HYDERABAD WHICH WERE NOT REFLECTED IN THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THE A.O RE - OPENED THE ASSESSMENT BY ISSUING A NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE IT ACT. IN RESPONSE TO THE N OTICE ASSESSEE FILED REVISED RETURN ON 25 - 02 - 2005 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 12 07 352/ - . IN OTHER WORDS THE ASSESSEE ADMITTED ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS. 5 50 000/ - ONLY AS AGAINST RS. 10 49 150/ - WHICH WAS NOT REFLECTED IN THE BALANCE SHEET. THE A.O T HEREFORE ADDED TOTAL CASH DEPOSITS OF RS. 10 49 150/ - AND COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT. THE ITAT HOWE VER SET ASIDE THE CASE TO WORK OUT THE PEAK CREDIT. AS PER THE DIRECTION OF THE TRIBUNAL A.O COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT AS PER THE REVISED RETURN F ILED BY T HE ASSESSEE. I N OTHER WORDS ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS. 5 50 000/ - OFFERE D BY ASSESSEE IN RESPONSE TO A NOTICE ISSUED U/S 148 OF THE IT ACT WAS ACCEPTED . 3. ACCORDING TO A.O THE AMOUNT DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT WAS NOT EVEN REFLECTED IN THE BALANCE SH EET AND 3 ITA NO. 1519/HYD/2016 JYOTHIRMOY HYD . ADDITIONAL INCOME WAS OFFERED TO TAX ONLY IN THE REVISED RETURN A FTER THE A.O NOTICE D THE DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. THUS THE AO HAD ARRIVED AT A PRIMA FACIE VIEW THAT IT WAS A CASE OF CONCEALMENT OF INCOME AND FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. ACCORDINGLY A NOTICE WAS ISSUED U/S 148 OF THE ACT IN RESPONSE TO WHICH ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE PEAK CREDIT WORKING WAS BASED ON THE BANK ACCOUNT S IN THE NAME OF ASSESSEE AND HIS WIFE I.E . CANARA BANK AND ING VYSYA B ANK. SINCE MAJOR TRANSACTIONS WERE REFLECT ED IN CANARA B ANK MUCH STRESS WAS NOT MADE ON THE OTHER TWO ACCOUNTS. A SSESSEE HAVING OFFERED TO TAX PEAK CREDIT IN THE REVISED RETURN IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT IT IS NOT A FIT CASE FOR LEVY OF PENALTY. 4. A.O O BSERVED THAT ASSESSEE S CONTENTION IS NOT ACCEPTABLE BECAUSE A VERIFICATION OF BANK STATEMENTS AND PEAK CREDIT WORKINGS INDICATE THAT EQUAL NUMBER OF TRANSACTIONS - VOLUME WISE AND QUANTUM WISE - IN THE OTHER TWO BANK ACCOUNTS WERE NEVER MENTIONED BY ASSESSEE EARLIER AT ANY STAGE OF SCRUTINY PROCEEDINGS AS WELL AS APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. HE ALSO OBSERVED THAT PENALTY PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIA TED IN VIEW OF CONCEALMENT OF TWO BANK ACCOUNTS IN ING VYSYA BANK AND ALSO FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS ( PARA 6 OF THE PENALTY ORDER ). VIDE PARA 7 4 ITA NO. 1519/HYD/2016 JYOTHIRMOY HYD . A.O REITERATED THAT THE NOTICE WAS ISSUED NOT ONLY FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME BUT ALSO FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS AND FINALLY CONCLUDED THAT THERE WAS CONCEALMENT OF INCOME AND FUR NISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME ; TH E RELEVANT PORTION OF THE PENALTY ORDER READS AS UNDER: 8. THE ABOVE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ACCEPTABLE IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE WORKING OF PEAK CREDIT IS ON LY TO ASCERTAIN THE AMOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED MONEY INVESTED AND ITS CIRCULATION BUT THE FACT REMAINS THAT THE ASSESSEE CONCEALED HIS INCOME TO THE EXTENT OF PEAK CREDIT AMOUNTING TO RS. 5 50 000/ - . THER EFORE THE CONCEALED INCOME OF R S. 5 50 000/ - IS LIABLE FOR LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)((C) OF THE ACT. MOREOVER THE REVISED RETURN WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ONLY AFTER ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 147 AND NOT VOLUNTARILY . EVEN AFTER FILLING REVISED RETURN THE ASSESSEE DID NOT REVEAL TH E OTHER TWO ACCOUNTS AT ANY STAG E OF ASSESSMENT AS WELL AS APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS EARLI ER. RELIANCE IS PLACED IN THIS REGARD IN THE CASE OF CIT VS USHA INTERNATIONAL LTD. IN ITA NO. 1696/2006. 9. AS THE ASSESSEE HAS CONCEALED AND FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND THEREBY CONCEALED INCOME TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 5 50 000/ - AND EVADED TAX OF RS. 1 40 000/ - . THE MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM PENALTY TO BE LEVIED IS RS. 1 40 000/ - AND RS. 4 20 000/ - RESPECTIVELY. HOWEVER CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE I LEVY A PENALTY OF RS. 2 00 000/ - U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE IT ACT 1961. 5. BEFORE THE LD CIT (A) IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THERE IS NO BASIS FOR THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ARRIVE AT THE CONCEALED INCOME AS THE HONBLE ITAT DIRECTED AO TO VERIFY THE PEAK C REDIT. IT WAS ALSO CONTENDED THAT LEVY OF PENALTY OF RS. 2 LAKHS IS EXCESSIVE. 5 ITA NO. 1519/HYD/2016 JYOTHIRMOY HYD . 6. LD CIT (A) OBSERVED THAT IN THE LIGHT OF THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS THE REVISED RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AFTER ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 148 CANNOT BE SAID TO BE VOLUNTARY . (1) CIT VS. USHA INTERNATIONAL LTD. (2012) 254 CTR (DELHI) 509; (2) CIT VS. RAKESH SURI (2010) 230 CTR (ALL) 184 AND (3) P. RAJASWAMY RAJA JEWELLRY VS. CIT (2010) 323 ITR 527 (KER.). 7. LD CIT (A) FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE REVISED RETURN WAS FILED ONL Y AFTER CASH DEPOSITS WERE DETECTED BY THE DEPARTMENT AND THUS IT IS A CLEAR - CUT CASE OF CONCEALMENT OF INCOME . HOWEVER KEEPING IN VIEW THE NATURE OF BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE THE PENALTY LEVIABLE WAS RESTRICTED TO RS. 1 40 000/ - . 8. FURTHER AGGRIEVED AS SESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 9. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE LEVY OF PENALTY ON MERITS AT THE TIME OF FILING THE AP PEAL IN THE LIGHT OF THE LAT ER JUDGMENT OF THE HON BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIT VISAKHAPATNAM VS. BAISETTY REVATHI (ITTA NO.684 OF 2016 DATED 13.07.2017) THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL GROUNDS WERE FILED ALONG WITH A PETITION SEEKING ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL GROUNDS BY STATING THAT THE ABOVE MENTIONED ADDITIONAL GROUNDS WERE INADVERTENTLY OMITTED TO BE RAISED BEFORE THE TAX AUTHORITIES. (A) THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE HELD THAT THE NOTICE U/S 274 RWS 271(1)(C) IS NOT VALID AND CONSEQUENTLY THE ORDER PASSED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT IS ALSO NOT VALID. (B) THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT 6 ITA NO. 1519/HYD/2016 JYOTHIRMOY HYD . STRIKE OFF THE INAPPROPRIATE PORTION IN THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 274 AN D HELD THAT THE NOTICE IS NOT VALID. 10. LD COUNSEL BRIEFLY NARRATED THE FACTS OF THE CASE TO SUBMIT THAT NO ADDITION WAS MADE TO THE INCOME ADMITTED IN THE REVISED RETURN AND HENCE PENALTY IS NOT LEVIABLE. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT CONSEQUENT TO THE ORI GINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSING OFFICER INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS BUT THE PENALTY WAS ULTIMATELY LEVIED AFTER GIVING EFFECT TO THE DIRECTION OF THE ITAT . H E ADVERTED MY ATTENTION TO PAGES 10 AND 11 OF THE PAPER BOOK (WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FIL ED BEFORE CIT (A)) TO CONTEND THAT IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SURESH CHANDRA MITTAL (251 ITR 9) ANY AMOUNT ADMITTED IN RESPONSE TO A NOTICE ISSUED U/S 1 4 8 SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AS INCOME CONCEALED AND THE BU RDEN IS UPON THE REVENUE TO PROVE THE SAME (ALSO SEE 241 ITR 124 (MP)). 11. IT WAS ALSO CONTENDED THAT ADDITIONAL INCOME WAS OFFERED TO TAX ON 25.02.2005 AND THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED ON 29.03.2006 BY MERELY ADDING FURTHER AMOUNT OF RS. 4 99 150/ - AND THUS THE ADMITTED INCOME ACHIEV ED FINALITY; IF AT ALL THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS OF THE VIEW THAT RS. 5 50 000/ - REPRESENTS CONCEALED INCOME PENALTY SHOULD HAVE BEEN LEVIED WITH REFERENCE TO THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND NOT WITH REFERENCE TO THE ORDER PASSED ON 19.03.2014. BY REFERRING TO THE ADDITIONAL GROUND THE LD COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT STRIKE OFF THE INAPPROPRIATE PORTION IN THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 274 AND THUS THE NOTICE IS INVALID AND CONSEQUENT PROCEEDIN GS DESERVE TO BE QUASHED. RELIANCE WAS PLACED UPON THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT (SUPRA) TO SUBMIT THAT IT IS THE DUTY OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO SPECIFY AS TO WHETHER THE PENALTY 7 ITA NO. 1519/HYD/2016 JYOTHIRMOY HYD . PROCEEDINGS ARE INITIATED ON ACCOUNT OF CONCEALMENT OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AS OTHERWISE THE PROCEEDINGS ARISING THEREFROM DESERVE TO BE QUASHED. THE JUDGMENT ALSO STATES THAT THE PERSON WHO IS ACCUSED OF THE CONDITIONS MENTIONED IN SECTION 271 SHO ULD BE MADE AWARE OF THE GROUNDS ON WHICH IMPOSITION OF PENALTY IS PROPOSED AS HE HAS A RI GHT TO CONTEST SUCH PROCEEDINGS. THE HONBLE COURT ALSO RECOGNISED THE FACT THAT SOME CASES MAY ATTRACT BOTH THE OFFENCES AND IN SOME THERE MAY BE OVERLAPPING OF BOTH BUT IN SUCH CASES INITIATION MUST BE SPECIFICALLY FOR BOTH THE OFFENCES. IT WAS FURTHER OBSERVED THAT CONCEALMENT OF INCOME IS AN ACT OF OMISSION WHILE FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME IS AN ACT OF C OM M ISSION. THE CONSEQUENCES OF SUCH ACT S BEING PENAL IN NATURE AN ASSESSEE HAS TO BE INFORMED AS TO WHAT EXAC TLY IS THE CHARGE I.E. THE PRECISE ALLEGATION AGAINST THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE INFORMED. LD COUNSEL REFERRED TO THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO SUBMIT THAT THE ASSESSING O FFICER HAS NOT SPECIFIED AS TO WHETHER THE NOTICE WAS FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FOR FURNISHING OF SUCH INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. 12. LD COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE FORM OF ADDITIONAL GROUNDS GOES TO THE ROOT OF THE MATTER AN D THEREFORE DESERVE TO BE ADMITTED SINCE NO ADDITIONAL FACTS ARE REQUIRED TO BE GONE INTO. 13. LD DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ON THE OTHER HAND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE DECLARED TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 7 57 352/ - ONLY VIDE RETURN OF INCOME DATED 30.06. 1999 AND AN ASSESSMENT WAS MADE ACCORDINGLY. ONLY UPON DETECTION BY THE DEPARTMENT ABOUT CONCEALMENT OF INCOME AND FURNISHING OF 8 ITA NO. 1519/HYD/2016 JYOTHIRMOY HYD . INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME REFERABLE TO CASH DEPOSITS IN CANARA BANK AND OTHER TWO BANK ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED BY HIM AND HIS WIFE T HE ASSESSEE CAME FORWARD WITH A REVISED RETURN IN RESPONSE TO A NOTICE U/S 148 DECLARING ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS. 5 50 000/ - . HE ALSO REFERRED TO PROVISIONS OF SECTION 139(5) OF THE ACT TO SUBMIT THAT THE INCOME DECLARED IN RESPONSE TO NOTIC E U/S 148 CANNOT BE TREATED AS REVISED RETURN S INCE THERE WAS LONG GAP BETWEEN THE DATE OF FILING OF ORIGINAL RETURN AND THE DATE OF ADMITTING THE ADDITIONAL INCOME. BUT FOR THE PROBE MADE BY THE REVENUE THE ADDITIONAL INCOME WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN OFFERED AND THE BANK DEPOSITS WERE NOT EVEN REFLECTED IN THE BALANCE SHEET. THUS IT WAS A CLEAR CASE OF NOT ONLY CONCEALMENT OF INCOME BUT ALSO FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. UNDER THESE PECULIAR CIRCUMSTANCES THE ASSESSING OFFICER INITIATED PE NALTY PROCEEDINGS WITHOUT STRIKING OFF EITHER CONCEALMENT OR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS SINCE BOTH ARE RELEVANT IN THIS CASE. THE ASSESSEE ALSO HAVING RESPONDED APPROPRIATELY IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT PUT TO NOTICE ABOUT THE R EASONS FOR ISSUANCE OF NOTICE. IN FACT THE ORDER LEVYING PENALTY CLEARLY SPECIFIES THAT IT WAS FOR NON - FURNISHING OF BANK ACCOUNTS IN ING VYSYA BANK RESULTING IN F URNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS AND THEREBY CONCEAL MENT OF INCOME. 13.1. LD DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE THUS SOUGHT TO DISTINGUISH THE JUDGMENT OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT BY CONTENDING THAT IN THE AFORECITED JUDGMENT THE HONBLE COURT HAD TAKEN NOTE OF THE FACT THAT THERE WAS AMBIGUITY IN THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE WHICH WAS F URTHER COMPOUNDED BY THE CONFUSED FINDING OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHEREAS IN THE INSTANT CASE THE FINDING WAS CATEGORICAL THAT THERE WAS CONCEALMENT OF INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF THE FACT THAT 9 ITA NO. 1519/HYD/2016 JYOTHIRMOY HYD . THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED I NACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME WHICH RESU LTED IN CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. HE RELIED UPON THE FOLLOWING JUDGMENTS WHEREIN THE COURTS HAVE HELD THAT EVEN IF AN ADDITIONAL INCOME IS OFFERED IN RESPONSE TO A NOTICE U/S 148 IT CANNOT BE SAID TO BE VOLUNTARY IF IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ADDITIONAL INCOME WAS OFFERED CONSEQUENT TO THE DETECTION OF INCOME BY THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY. (1) 323 ITR 527 (KERALA) IN THE CASE OF P. RAJASWAMY RAJA JEWELLERY VS. CIT; (2) 243 ITR 818 (KERALA) IN THE CASE OF P.C. JOSEPH & BROS. VS. CIT AND (3) 331 ITR 458 (ALLAHABAD) IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. RAKESH SURI. 14. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED RECORD. WITH REGARD TO THE FIRST CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ADDITIONAL INCOME HAVING BEEN OFFERED IN THE REVISED RETURN PENALTY PROVISI ONS ARE NOT ATTRACTED THE FACT REMAINS THAT THE INCOME TAX ACT PROVIDES FOR FILING OF REVISED RETURN WITH IN THE TIME PROVIDED U/S 139(5) OF THE ACT. EVEN IF IT IS NOT FILED WITHIN THE SPECIFIED TIME THERE MAY BE SOME EXCEPTIONAL CASES WHERE THE ASSESSEE DECLARES ADDITIONAL INCOME VOLUNTARILY BEFORE IT IS BROUGHT TO HIS NOTICE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 14.1. IN THE INSTANT CASE THE ASSESSEE DECLARED INCOME ON 30.06.1999 AND THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED . BU T FOR UNEARTHING THE FACT BY THE ASSESSING OF FICER THAT THE TOTAL DEPOSITS OF RS. 10 49 150/ - WERE NOT REFLECTED IN THE BALANCE SHEET IT WOULD NOT HAVE COME TO LIGHT AND WHEN THE ASSESSEE WAS CORNERED BY ISSUING A NOTICE U/ S 148 THE ASSESSEE DECLARED ADDITIONAL INCOME REFERABLE TO PEAK CREDIT. 10 ITA NO. 1519/HYD/2016 JYOTHIRMOY HYD . 15 . NO DOUBT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS INITIALLY OF THE OPINION THAT THE ENTIRE CREDIT SHOULD BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION INSTEAD OF PEAK CREDIT. BUT T HE FACT REMAINS THAT THE AMOUNT OFFERED TO TAX BY THE ASSESSEE WAS TREATED AS CONCEALED INCOME ON ACCOUN T OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND THIS WAS SPECIFIED EVEN IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 19.03.2014 BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: - PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) ARE INITIATED SEPARATELY IN VIEW OF THE CON CEALMENT OF TWO BANK ACCOUNTS IN ING VYSYA BANK AND FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS. THEREFORE IT CAN NOT BE SAID THAT ASSESSEE WAS NOT PUT TO NOTICE AS TO THE REASONS FOR ISSUANCE OF NOTICE. I T WAS CLEARLY STATED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ITSELF AND PENALTY NOTICE WAS ALSO ISSUED . I N FACT THE PENALTY WAS ALSO LEVIED NOT ONLY FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME BUT ALSO FOR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THERE WAS CONCEALMENT OF FACT S AND FIGURES ON ACCOUNT OF FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME WHICH RESULTED IN CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. 16. THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IS APPLICABLE WHERE CLARITY IS LACKING EITHER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OR IN THE PENALTY NOTICE W HICH MAY IMPAIR THE CHANCES OF THE ASSESSEE TO RESPOND TO THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER APPROPRIATELY. IN THE INSTANT CASE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ITSELF MAKE S IT CLEAR SINCE THE AO SPECIFIED THAT THE ASSESSEE CONCEALED PARTICULA RS OF INCOME AND FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME ; THEREFORE THE A.O DID NOT FIND IT NECESSARY TO STRIKE OFF ONE OF THE REASONS IN THE PRINTED FORMAT. THE ONLY MISTAKE IF ANY IS RETAINING THE WORD OR . HOWEVER SUCH TRIVIAL OMISSION SHOULD N OT 11 ITA NO. 1519/HYD/2016 JYOTHIRMOY HYD . BE CONSIDERED IN ISOLATION SO LONG AS THE REASONS FOR ISSUANCE OF NOTICE ARE MADE KNOWN TO THE ASSESSEE. 1 7 . IN THE INSTANT CASE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER CATEGORICALLY INDICATES THAT PENALTY IS LEVIABLE ON BOTH COUNTS AND EVEN PENALTY ORDER DETAILS THE NATURE OF DEFAULT ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE FOLLOWED BY A SPECIFIC CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CONCEALED INCOME AND FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES IT CANNOT BE ASSUMED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT GIVEN A PROPE R OPPORTUNITY OF RESPONDING TO THE NOTICE BY VIRTUE OF NOT STRIKING OFF THE WORD OR IN THE PENALTY NOTICE. 18. ASSES S EE IN HIS REPLY RESPONDED TO BOTH THE ACCUSATIONS WHICH ALSO PROVES THAT THERE WAS NO CONFUSION IN THE MIND OF THE ASSESSEE AS TO THE REASONS FOR INITIATING PENALTY PROCEEDINGS EITHER BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY OR BEFORE THE SECOND APPELLATE AUTHORITY ; IN THE ORIGINAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT RAISED THIS OBJECTION WHICH ALSO PROVES THAT THE OBJECTION WAS N OT ON THE GROUND OF VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 19. IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE COURTS ARE NEITHER TO BE READ AS EUCLIDS THEOREMS NOR AS PROVISIONS OF THE STATUTE AND THAT TOO TAKEN OUT OF THEIR CONTEXT. IN THE CASE OF COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE CALCUTTA VS. M/S. ALNOORI TOBACCO PRODUCTS AND ANR. (2004) [6 SCC 186] THE COURT OBSERVED THAT CIRCUMSTANTIAL FLEXIBILITY ONE ADDITIONAL OR DIFFERENT FACT MAY MAKE A WO RLD OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CONCLUSIONS IN TWO CASES AND CASES SHOULD NOT BE DISPOSED OF BLINDLY PLACING RELIANCE ON AN EARLIER DECISION. THE COURT FURTHER OBSERVED THAT PRECEDENT SHOULD BE FOLLOWED ONLY SO FAR AS IT MARKS THE PATH OF JUSTICE AND A CLOSE 12 ITA NO. 1519/HYD/2016 JYOTHIRMOY HYD . S IMILARITY BETWEEN ONE CASE AND ANOTHER IS NOT ENOUGH TO MATCH THE COLOUR OF ONE CASE AGAINST THE COLOUR OF ANOTHER. 20 . THE DECISIONS CITED BY THE LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ARE MAINLY FOCUSED ON THE POINT THAT EVEN IF THERE IS A REMOTEST POSSIBILITY OF A SSESSEE NOT GETTING OPPORTUNITY TO PUT FORTH ITS CASE FULLY ON ACCOUNT OF LACK OF CLARITY IN ISSUANCE OF NOTICE IT WOULD BE IN VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE MORE PARTICULARLY IN PENAL PROCEEDINGS. HOWEVER IN THE INSTANT CASE THE AO HAS ALL THROUGH MADE IT TRANSPARENT THAT THE INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS WERE NOT ONLY FOR CONCEALMENT OF PENALTY BUT ALSO FOR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS WELL AS IN THE PENALTY ORDER IT WAS SPECIFIED . I N THE NOTICE ONE OF THE PORTIONS WAS NOT STRUCK OF TO ACHIEVE THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH NOTICE WAS ISSUED AND THE ASSESSEE HAS UNDERSTOOD IT IN THE SAME PERSPECTIVE . THEREFORE ASSESSEE NEVER RAISED ANY OBJECTION WITH REGARD TO ISSUANCE OF NOTICE EITHER BEFORE THE AO OR BEFORE THE LD CIT (A). 21 . HAVING NOTICED A DECISION OF JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT ON A DIFFERENT SET OF FACTS THE ASSESSEE RAISED ADDITIONAL GROUND BEFORE THIS BENCH OVERLOOKING THE FACT THAT THERE IS NO AMBIGUITY IN THE NOTIC E ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. SUCH BEING THE CASE I AM OF THE FIRM VIEW THAT THE RELIANCE PLACED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IS MISPLACED. IN THE INSTANT CASE THE ASSESSEE HAVING DECLARED THE ADDITIONAL INCOME ONLY AFTER DISCOVERY OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH REGARD TO TOTAL DEPOSITS NOT REFLECTED IN THE BALANCE SHEET IT WAS A CLEAR CASE OF CONCEALMENT OF INCOME AND NON - RECORDING OF THE DEPOSITS IN THE BALANCE SHEET WOULD AMOUNT TO FURNISHING OF INACCURATE 13 ITA NO. 1519/HYD/2016 JYOTHIRMOY HYD . P ARTICULARS OF INCOME. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD CIT (A) IN LEVYING PENALTY DOES NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE. ACCORDINGLY APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 2 2 . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 2 8 T H NOVEMBER 2 017 S D / - (D. MANMOHAN) VICE PRESIDENT HYDERABAD DATED: 2 8 T H NOVEMBER 2017 . OK K 1 SHRI JYOTHIRMOY C/ - SRI S. RAMARAO ADV FLAT NO. 102 SHRIYAS ELEGANCE 3 - 6 - 643 STREET NO. 9 HIMAYATNAGAR HYDERABAD . 2 DCIT CIRCLE - 1 WARANGAL . 3 CIT(A) - 3 HYDERABAD. 4 ADD. CIT WARANGAL RANGE WARANGAL . 5 THE DR ITAT HYDERABAD 6 GUARD FILE