Smt. Harmeet Kaur Sran,, New Delhi v. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 2646/DEL/2017 | 2009-2010
Pronouncement Date: 29-11-2019 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 264620114 RSA 2017
Assessee PAN AACCC9064B
Bench Delhi
Appeal Number ITA 2646/DEL/2017
Duration Of Justice 2 year(s) 6 month(s) 28 day(s)
Appellant Smt. Harmeet Kaur Sran,, New Delhi
Respondent DCIT, New Delhi
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 29-11-2019
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted C
Tribunal Order Date 29-11-2019
Assessment Year 2009-2010
Appeal Filed On 01-05-2017
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH C : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI O.P.KANT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AN D SHRI KULDIP SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.2645/DEL./2017 A.Y. 2008-09 ITA NO.2646/DEL./2017 A.Y. 2009-10 ITA NO.2647/DEL./2017 A.Y. 2010-11 SMT. HARMEET KAUR SRAN VS. DCIT 527B 5 TH FLOOR HBN OFFICE CENTRAL CIRCLE-29 D-MALL DISTT. CENTRE PASCHIM VIHAR NEW DELHI NEW DELHI PAN : AACCC9064B (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : MS. ASHISHA MITTAL CA REVENUE BY : SHRI S.N.MEENA SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 14.11.2019 DATE OF ORDER : 29.11.2019 O R D E R PER KULDIP SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER : SINCE THE IDENTICAL ISSUES HAS BEEN RAISED IN ALL THE AFORESAID APPEALS ON THE BASIS OF IDENTICAL SET OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES THE SAME ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY WAY OF COMPOSITE ORDE R TO AVOID REPETITION OF DISCUSSION. ITA NO. 2645TO 2647/DEL./2017 2 2. THE APPELLANT SMT. HARMEET KAUR SRAN NEW DELHI (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS 'THE ASSESSEE) BY FILI NG THE AFORESAID APPEALS SOUGHT TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDERS D ATED 30/01/2017 PASSED BY LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-3 0 NEW DELHI CONFIRMING THE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT LEVIED BY THE AO ON THE IDENTICAL GROUNDS INTER ALIA THAT : 1 . UNDER THE FACTS AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE PENALTY ORDER PASSED U/S 271(1 )(C) OF THE ACT BY THE ID. A .O. AND CONFIRMED BY THE ID. CIT(A) IS INVALID & BAD IN LAW AS FROM THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 274 R.W.S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT IT IS NOT DISCERNABLE AS TO WHETHER THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS W AS INITIATED FOR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME AND THEREFORE THE IMPUGNED P ENALTY ORDER PASSED DESERVES TO BE QUASHED. 2. UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE T HE ID. CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN PASSING THE APPELLATE O RDER WITHOUT AFFORDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO TH E APPELLANT. 3. UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE T HE LD.FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN U PHOLDING THE ACTION OF LD. ASSESSING AUTHORITY IMPOSING THE PENA LTY OF 5 62 988/- 83 246/- AND 18 972/- U/S 271(1 )(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 FOR A.Y. 2008-09 2009-10 AND 2010-11 RESPECTIVELY WHICH IS HIGHLY INJUDICIOUS UNWARRANT ED AGAINST THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND BAD AT LAW. 4. THE APPELLANT PRAYS FOR LEAVE TO ADD AMEND ALTER OR WITHDRAW ANY GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 3. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS NECESSARY FOR ADJUDICAT ION OF THE CONTROVERSY AT HAND ARE : ON THE BASIS OF ASSESSME NT ORDERS FRAMED U/S 143(3) 153A OF THE ACT AT THE INCOME OF RS. 18 38 000/- 5 96 074/- AND 5 65 920/- FOR A.Y. 2008-09 2009- 10 AND 2010-11 RESPECTIVELY BY MAKING ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF INCOM E FROM ITA NO. 2645TO 2647/DEL./2017 3 UNDISCLOSED SOURCES UNEXPLAINED AND UNDISCLOSED IN VESTMENT THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. DECLINING THE CONTENTION RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AS SESSING OFFICER LEVIED THE PENALTY TO THE TUNE OF RS. 5 62 988/- 83 246/- AND 18 972/- @ 100% OF TAX SOUGHT TO BE EVADE BY THE ASSESSEE FOR A.Y. 2008-09 2009-10 AND 2010-11 RESPECTIVELY. 4. ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BY WAY OF AN APPEAL BEF ORE THE LD. CIT (A) WHO HAS CONFIRMED THE PENALTY BY DISMIS SING THE APPEAL. FEELING AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE HAS COME UP BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL BY WAY OF FILING THE PRESENT APPEAL. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PARTIES TO THE APPEAL GONE THROUGH THE DOCUMENTS R ELIED UPON AND ORDERS PASSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES BELOW IN T HE LIGHT OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 6. UNDISPUTEDLY A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION WAS CARRIED OUT AT THE BUSINESS / RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF ASSESSEE ON 20/11/2009 BEING PART OF HBN GROUP OF CASES AND CONSEQUENTLY PROCEEDING U/S 153A WERE INITIATED. IT IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE THAT IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE ASSESSEE FILED A RETURN DECLARING NIL IN COME AND ACCORDINGLY ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 153A OF TH E ACT. IT IS ITA NO. 2645TO 2647/DEL./2017 4 ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE THAT DURING THE SEARCH AND SEIZ URE OPERATION NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WAS SEIZED FROM THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE. 7. IN THE BACKDROP OF THE AFORESAID FACTS AND CIRC UMSTANCES OF THE CASE ORDER PASSED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND ARGUMENTS ADDRESSED BY THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE PARTIES THE SOLE QUESTION ARISES FOR DETERMINATION IN THIS CASE IS:- AS TO WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAS CONCEALED PARTICULA RS OF INCOME OR HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME D URING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS? 8. LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT IN ORDER TO INITIATE THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS THE AO HAS FAILED TO SPECI FY IN THE SHOW- CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 271(1)(C)/274 OF THE ACT IF THE ASSESSEE HAS CONCEALED 4 ITA NO.2550/DEL./2016 THE PARTICULARS O F INCOME OR HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND RELIED UPON THE DECISIONS OF HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN CASE OF CIT VS. MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY-359ITR 565 C IT VS. SSAS EMERALA MEADOWS -73 TAXMANN.COM 241 (KAR.) (REVENUES SLP DISMISSED IN 242 TAXMAN 180) AND HON BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN PR. CIT VS. SAHARA INDIA LIF E INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. IN ITA 475/2019 ORDER DATED 02.08.2019 . ITA NO. 2645TO 2647/DEL./2017 5 9. IN ORDER TO PROCEED FURTHER WE WOULD LIKE TO P ERUSE THE NOTICES ISSUED BY AO U/S 274 READ WITH SECTION 271 (1)(C) OF THE ACT TO INITIATE THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS FOR A.Y. 20 08-09 2009-10 AND 2010-11 WHICH ARE EXTRACTED AS UNDER FOR READY PERUSAL:- NOTICE UNDER SECTION 274 READ WITH SECTION 271 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961. (A.Y. 2008-09) ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 4 NEW DELHI. DATED: 23.12.2011 TO SMT. HARMEET KAUR SRAN M-105 GURU HAR KISHAN NAGAR PASCHIM VIHAR NEW DELHI WHEREAS IN THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE ME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 IT APPEARS TO ME THAT YOU :- HAVE WITHOUT REASONABLE CAUSE FAILED TO COMPLY WIT H A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 142(1)/143(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 D ATED HAVE CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF YOUR INCOME OR F URNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME IN TERMS OF E XPLANATION 1 2 3 4 AND 5. UNDISCLOSED INCOME IN THE CASE OF SEARCH. YOU ARE HEREBY REQUESTED TO APPEAR BEFORE ME AT 11. 30 AM/PM ON 23/01/12 AND SHOW CAUSE WHY AN ORDER IMPOSING A PENALTY ON Y OU SHOULD NOT BE MADE UNDER SECTION 271 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961. IF YOU DO NOT WISH TO AVAIL YOURSELF OF THIS OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD I N PERSON OF THROUGH AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE YOU MAY SHOW CAUSE IN WRI TING ON OR BEFORE THE SAID DATE WHICH WILL BE CONSIDERED BEFORE ANY SUCH ORDER IS MADE UNDER SECTION 271. SD/- ASSESSING OFFICER ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 4 NEW DELHI ITA NO. 2645TO 2647/DEL./2017 6 NOTICE UNDER SECTION 274 READ WITH SECTION 271 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961. (A.Y. 2009-10) ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 4 NEW DELHI. DATED: 23.12.2011 TO SMT. HARMEET KAUR SRAN M-105 GURU HAR KISHAN NAGAR PASCHIM VIHAR NEW DELHI WHEREAS IN THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE ME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 IT APPEARS TO ME THAT YOU :- HAVE WITHOUT REASONABLE CAUSE FAILED TO COMPLY WIT H A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 142(1)/143(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 D ATED HAVE CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF YOUR INCOME OR F URNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME IN TERMS OF E XPLANATION 1 2 3 4 AND 5. UNDISCLOSED INCOME IN THE CASE OF SEARCH. YOU ARE HEREBY REQUESTED TO APPEAR BEFORE ME AT 11. 30 AM/PM ON 24/01/12 AND SHOW CAUSE WHY AN ORDER IMPOSING A PENALTY ON Y OU SHOULD NOT BE MADE UNDER SECTION 271 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961. IF YOU DO NOT WISH TO AVAIL YOURSELF OF THIS OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD I N PERSON OF THROUGH AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE YOU MAY SHOW CAUSE IN WRI TING ON OR BEFORE THE SAID DATE WHICH WILL BE CONSIDERED BEFORE ANY SUCH ORDER IS MADE UNDER SECTION 271. SD/- ASSESSING OFFICER ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 4 NEW DELHI ITA NO. 2645TO 2647/DEL./2017 7 NOTICE UNDER SECTION 274 READ WITH SECTION 271 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961. (A.Y. 2010-11) ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 4 NEW DELHI. DATED: 23.12.2011 TO SMT. HARMEET KAUR SRAN M-105 GURU HAR KISHAN NAGAR PASCHIM VIHAR NEW DELHI WHEREAS IN THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE ME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 IT APPEARS TO ME THAT YOU :- HAVE WITHOUT REASONABLE CAUSE FAILED TO COMPLY WIT H A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 142(1)/143(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 D ATED HAVE CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF YOUR INCOME OR F URNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME IN TERMS OF E XPLANATION 1 2 3 4 AND 5. UNDISCLOSED INCOME IN THE CASE OF SEARCH. YOU ARE HEREBY REQUESTED TO APPEAR BEFORE ME AT 11. 30 AM/PM ON 24/01/12 AND SHOW CAUSE WHY AN ORDER IMPOSING A PENALTY ON Y OU SHOULD NOT BE MADE UNDER SECTION 271 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961. IF YOU DO NOT WISH TO AVAIL YOURSELF OF THIS OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD I N PERSON OF THROUGH AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE YOU MAY SHOW CAUSE IN WRI TING ON OR BEFORE THE SAID DATE WHICH WILL BE CONSIDERED BEFORE ANY SUCH ORDER IS MADE UNDER SECTION 271. SD/- ASSESSING OFFICER ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 4 NEW DELHI 10. BARE PERUSAL OF THE NOTICES ISSUED U/S 274 REA D WITH SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT EXTRACTED ABOVE IN ORDER TO INITIATE THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ASSESSEE GO TO PROV E THAT THE AO ITA NO. 2645TO 2647/DEL./2017 8 HIMSELF WAS NOT AWARE / SURE AS TO WHETHER HE IS IS SUING NOTICE TO INITIATE THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS EITHER FOR CONCEA LMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME BY THE ASSESSEE RATHER ISSUED VAGUE AN D AMBIGUOUS NOTICE BY INCORPORATING BOTH THE LIMBS OF SECTION 2 71(1)(C). WHEN THE CHARGE IS TO BE FRAMED AGAINST ANY PERSON SO AS TO MOVE THE PENAL PROVISIONS AGAINST HIM/HER HE/SHE IS REQUIRE D TO BE SPECIFICALLY MADE AWARE OF THE CHARGES TO BE LEVELE D AGAINST HIM/HER. 11. HONBLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA IN CASE OF CIT VS. MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY (SUPRA) WHILE DECIDING THE IDENTICAL ISSUE HELD THAT WHEN THE AO HAS FAILE D TO ISSUE A SPECIFIC SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE AS REQUI RED U/S 274 READ WITH SECTION 271(L)(C) PENALTY LEVIED IS NOT SUSTA INABLE. THE OPERATIVE PART OF THE JUDGMENT IS REPRODUCED AS UND ER:- 59. AS THE PROVISION STANDS THE PENALTY PROCEEDIN GS CAN BE INITIATED ON VARIOUS GROUND SET OUT THEREIN. IF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AUTHORITY CATEGORICALLY RECORDS A FINDING REGAR DING THE EXISTENCE OF ANY SAID GROUNDS MENTIONED THEREIN AND THEN PENALTY PROCEEDINGS IS INITIATED IN THE NOTICE TO BE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 274 THEY COULD CONVENIENTLY REFER TO THE S AID ORDER WHICH CONTAINS THE SATISFACTION OF THE AUTHORITY WHICH HA S PASSED THE ORDER. HOWEVER IF THE EXISTENCE OF THE CONDITIONS COULD NOT BE DISCERNED FROM THE SAID ORDER AND IF IT IS A CASE O F RELYING ON DEEMING PROVISION CONTAINED IN EXPLANATION 1 OR IN EXPLANATION 1 (B) THEN THOUGH PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE IN THE N ATURE OF CIVIL LIABILITY IN FACT IT IS PENAL IN NATURE. IN EITHE R EVENT THE PERSON WHO IS ACCUSED OF THE CONDITIONS MENTIONED IN SECTI ON 271 SHOULD BE MADE KNOWN ABOUT THE GROUNDS ON WHICH THE Y INTEND IMPOSING PENALTY ON HIM AS THE SECTION 274 MAKES IT CLEAR THAT ITA NO. 2645TO 2647/DEL./2017 9 ASSESSEE HAS A RIGHT TO CONTEST SUCH PROCEEDINGS AN D SHOULD HAVE FULL OPPORTUNITY TO MEET THE CASE OF THE DEPARTMENT AND SHOW THAT THE CONDITIONS STIPULATED IN SECTION 271 (1)( C) DO NOT EXIST AS SUCH HE IS NOT LIABLE TO PAY PENALTY. THE PRACTICE OF THE DEPARTMENT SENDING A PRINTED FORM WHERE ALL THE GRO UND MENTIONED IN SECTION 271 ARE MENTIONED WOULD NOT SA TISFY REQUIREMENT OF LAW WHEN THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE ASS ESSEE NOT REBUTTING THE INITIAL PRESUMPTION IS SERIOUS IN NAT URE AND HE HAD TO PAY PENALTY FROM 100% TO 300% OF THE TAX LIABILI TY. AS SAID PROVISIONS HAVE TO BE HELD TO BE STRICTLY CONSTRUED NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 274 SHOULD SATISFY THE GROUNDS WHICH HE HAS TO MEET SPECIFICALLY. OTHERWISE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE IS OFFENDED IF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE IS VAGUE. ON THE BASIS OF SUCH PROCEEDINGS NO PENALTY COULD BE IMPOSED ON THE ASS ESSEE. 60. CLAUSE (C) DEALS WITH TWO SPECIFIC OFFENCES TH AT IS TO SAY CONCEALING PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHING INAC CURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. NO DOUBT THE FACTS OF SOME CASES MAY ATTRACT BOTH THE OFFENCES AND IN SOME CASES THERE M AY BE OVERLAPPING OF THE TWO OFFENCES BUT IN SUCH CASES T HE INITIATION OF THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ALSO MUST BE FOR BOTH THE O FFENCES. BUT DRAWING UP PENALTY PROCEEDINGS FOR ONE OFFENCE AND FINDING THE ASSESSEE GUILTY OF ANOTHER OFFENCE OR FINDING HIM G UILTY FOR EITHER THE ONE OR THE OTHER CANNOT BE SUSTAINED IN LAW. IT IS NEEDLESS TO POINT OUT SATISFACTION OF THE EXISTENCE OF THE GROU NDS MENTIONED IN SECTION 271(1)(C) WHEN IT IS A SINE QUA NON FOR INITIATION OR PROCEEDINGS THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS SHOULD BE CONF INED ONLY TO THOSE GROUNDS AND THE SAID GROUNDS HAVE TO BE SPECI FICALLY STATED SO THAT THE ASSESSEE WOULD HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO MEET THOSE GROUNDS. AFTER HE PLACES HIS VERSION AND TRIES TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CLAIM IF AT ALL PENALTY IS TO BE IMPOSED IT SHOU LD BE IMPOSED ONLY ON THE GROUNDS ON WHICH HE IS CALLED UPON TO ANSWER . IT IS NOT OPEN TO THE AUTHORITY AT THE TIME OF IMPOSING PENA LTY TO IMPOSE PENALTY ON THE GROUNDS OTHER THAN WHAT ASSESSEE WAS CALLED UPON TO MEET. OTHERWISE THOUGH THE INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS MAY BE VALID AND LEGAL THE FINAL ORDER IMPOSING PE NALTY WOULD OFFEND PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. THUS ONCE THE PROCEEDINGS ARE INITIATED ON ONE GROU ND THE PENALTY SHOULD ALSO BE IMPOSED ON THE SAME GROUND. WHERE THE BASIS OF THE INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS IS N OT IDENTICAL WITH THE GROUND ON WHICH THE PENALTY WAS IMPOSED THE IM POSITION OF PENALTY IS NOT VALID. THE VALIDITY OF THE ORDER OF PENALTY MUST BE DETERMINED WITH REFERENCE TO THE INFORMATION FACTS AND MATERIALS IN THE HANDS OF THE AUTHORITY IMPOSING THE PENALTY AT THE TIME THE ORDER WAS PASSED AND FURTHER DISCOVERY OF FACTS SUB SEQUENT TO THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY CANNOT VALIDATE THE ORDER OF PENALTY WHICH WHEN PASSED WAS NOT SUSTAINABLE. 61. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS EMPOWERED UNDER THE AC T TO INITIATE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ONCE HE IS SATISFIED IN THE COU RSE OF ANY PROCEEDINGS THAT THERE IS CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF TOTAL INCOME UNDER CLAUSE (C). ITA NO. 2645TO 2647/DEL./2017 10 CONCEALMENT FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF I NCOME ARE DIFFERENT. THUS THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE ISSUING NOTICE HAS TO COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT WHETHER IS IT A CASE OF CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR IS IT A CASE OF FURNISHING OF INACCURA TE PARTICULARS. THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF T ASHOK POI V. CIT [2 007] 292 ITR 11 /161 TAXMAN 340 AT PAGE 19 HAS HELD THAT CON CEALMENT OF INCOME AND FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME CARRY DIFFERENT CONNOTATIONS. THE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN T HE CASE OF CIT V. MANU ENGG. [1980] 122 ITR 306 AND THE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. VIRGO MARKETING (P) LTD . [2008] 171 TAXMAN 156 HAS HELD THAT LEVY OF PENALTY HAS TO BE CLEAR AS TO THE LIMB FOR WHICH IT IS LEVIED AND THE POSITION BE ING UNCLEAR PENALTY IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. THEREFORE WHEN THE ASS ESSING OFFICER PROPOSES TO INVOKE THE FIRST LIMB BEING CONCEALMENT THEN THE NOTICE HAS TO BE APPROPRIATELY MARKED. SIMILAR IS T HE CASE FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE ST ANDARD PROFORMA WITHOUT STRIKING OF THE RELEVANT CLAUSES W ILL LEAD TO AN INFERENCE AS TO NON-APPLICATION OF MIND. 12. HONBLE APEX COURT IN CASE OF CIT VS. SSAS EMERALA MEADOWS - (2016) 73 TAXMANN.COM 248 (SC) WHILE DISMISSING THE SLP FILED BY THE REVENUE QUASHING THE PENALTY B Y THE TRIBUNAL AS WELL AS HONBLE HIGH COURT ON GROUND OF UNSPECIF IED NOTICE HAS HELD AS UNDER:- SECTION 274 READ WITH SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE I NCOME-TAX ACT 1961 - PENALTY - PROCEDURE FOR IMPOSITION OF (CONDI TIONS PRECEDENT) - ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 - TRIBUNAL RE LYING ON DECISION OF DIVISION BENCH OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT RENDERED IN CASE OF CIT V. MANJUNATHA COTTON & GINNING FACTORY [2013] 359 1TR 565/218 TAXMAN 423/35 TAXMANN.COM 250 ALLO WED APPEAL OF ASSESSEE HOLDING THAT NOTICE ISSUED BY AS SESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 274 READ WITH SECTION 271 (1 )(C) WAS BAD IN LAW AS IT DID NOT SPECIFY UNDER WHICH LIMB OF SECTION 271 (1 )(C) PENALTY PROCEEDINGS HAD BEEN INITIATED I.E. WHETHER FOR C ONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE P ARTICULARS OF INCOME - HIGH COURT HELD THAT MATTER WAS COVERED BY AFORESAID DECISION OF DIVISION BENCH AND THEREFORE THERE WA S NO SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW ARISING FOR DETERMINATI ON - WHETHER SINCE THERE WAS NO MERIT IN SLP FILED BY REVENUE S AME WAS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED - HELD YES [PARA 2] [IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE] ITA NO. 2645TO 2647/DEL./2017 11 13. HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN CASE OF PR. CIT VS. SAHARA INDIA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. (SUPRA) WHILE DECIDING THE IDENTICAL ISSUE HELD AS UNDER :- 21. THE RESPONDENT HAD CHALLENGED THE UPHOLDING OF THE PENALTY IMPOSED UNDER SECTION 271 (1) (C) OF THE AC T WHICH WAS ACCEPTED BY THE ITAT. IT FOLLOWED THE DECISION OF T HE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN CIT V. MANJUNATHA COTTON & GINNING FA CTORY 359 ITR 565 (KAR) AND OBSERVED THAT THE NOTICE ISSU ED BY THE AO WOULD BE BAD IN LAW IF IT DID NOT SPECIFY WHICH LIM B OF SECTION 271(1) (C) THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS HAD BEEN INITIAT ED UNDER I.E. WHETHER FOR CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FOR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT HAD FOLLOWED THE ABOVE JUDGMENT IN THE S UBSEQUENT ORDER IN COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX V. SSA'S EMERAL D MEADOWS (2016) 73 TAXMAN.COM 241 (KAR) THE APPEAL AGAINST WHICH WAS DISMISSED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA I N SLP NO. 11485 OF2016 BY ORDER DATED 5TH AUGUST 2016. 14. FOLLOWING THE DECISIONS RENDERED IN THE CASES OF CIT VS. MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY CIT VS. SSA S EMERALA MEADOWS AND PR. CIT VS. SAHARA INDIA LIFE I NSURANCE COMPANY LTD. (SUPRA) WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT WHEN TH E NOTICES ISSUED BY THE AO ARE BAD IN LAW BEING VAGUE AND AMBIGUOUS HAVING NOT SPECIFIED UNDER WHICH LIMB OF SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS INITI ATED U/S 271(1)(C) ARE NOT SUSTAINABLE. 15. EVEN OTHERWISE IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2007-08 IN IDENTICAL SET OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES A PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) WERE INITIATED AND HAS BEEN QUASHED BY THE CO-ORDIN ATE BENCH OF ITA NO. 2645TO 2647/DEL./2017 12 TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 2644/DEL/2017 ON GROUND OF VALI D NOTICES ISSUED U/S 274 READ WITH SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE A CT. 16. IN VIEW OF WHAT HAS BEEN DISCUSSED ABOVE THE D ECISION RENDERED BY HONBLE APEX COURT AND HONBLE HIGH COU RT IN CASE OF CIT VS. MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY CIT VS. SSAS EMERALA MEADOWS AND HONBLE HIGH COURT OF DEL HI IN PR. CIT VS. SAHARA INDIA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD . (SUPRA) ARE SQUARELY APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTAN CES OF THESE CASES AS THE AO HAS FAILED TO SPECIFY THAT NOTICES ISSUED U/S 274 READ WITH SECTION 271(1)(C) AS TO WHETHER ASSESSE E HAS CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR HAS FURNISHED INACCURA TE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME. SO IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES PENALTY LE VIED BY AO AND CONFIRMED BY LD. CIT(A) IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN THE E YES OF LAW HENCE HEREBY DELETED. CONSEQUENTLY ALL THE AFORESA ID THREE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THIS 29 TH NOVEMBER 2019. SD/- SD/- (O.P.KANT) (KULDIP SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIALMEMBER D ATED : 29 /11/ 2019 *BR* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT ITA NO. 2645TO 2647/DEL./2017 13 4. CIT(A)-31 NEW DELHI. 5. CIT(ITAT) NEW DELHI. AR ITAT NEW DELHI DATE OF DICTATION 25.11.2019 DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 25.11.2019 DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE OTHER MEMBER DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. PS/PS DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR. PS/PS DATE ON WHICH THE FINAL ORDER IS UPLOADED ON THE WEBSITE OF ITAT DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER DATE OF DISPATCH OF THE ORDER