Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. On the contrary, Ld. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below and in support of his contention, he filed the 03 paper books containing written submissions and gist of various case laws. For the sake of convenience the Written Submissions filed by the Ld. DR are reproduced as under:-

"Sub: Written Submission in the above case- reg.

In the above case, it is humbly submitted that the following decisions may kindly be considered with regard to levy of penalty u/s 271 (1 )(c) in light of decision of Karnataka High Court in CIT V. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory [2013] 359 ITR 565 (Para 4) and Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CIT Vs SSA's Emerald Meadows [2016] 73 Taxmann.Com 248 (SC)/[2016] 242 Taxman 180 (SC):

6. Earthmoving Equipment Service Corporation Vs DCIT [2017] 84 taxmann.com 51 (Mumbai- Trib.)/[2017] 166 ITD 113 (Mumbai - Trib.)/[2017] 187 TT J 233 (Mumbai - Trib.) where Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai held as follows:

"6. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the relevant material on record including cited case laws. So far as the legal grounds are concerned, a perusal of quantum order reveals that the penalty was initiated for furnishing of inaccurate particulars and finally the same was levied on the same ground. We find that the assessee was issued two show cause notices- one in the standard printed form u/s 274 dated 04/03/2013 as placed on Page No.-86 of the paper book and another dated 27/08/2013 by way of letter as placed in Page No.92 of the paper book. We find that in the first notice, the relevant clause has not been ticked off and the second notice is simply a show cause notice. However, in the quantum order Ld. AO, after due deliberations, clearly initiated the penalty proceedings for furnishing of inaccurate particulars which shows due application of mind qua penalty proceedings. The penalty was finally levied on the same ground as well. Therefore, mere marking of relevant clause, in our opinion, on the facts of the case, has not caused any prejudice to the assessee particularly when the assessee voluntarily offered certain additions in the quantum proceedings with a specific request to AO for not initiating the penalty against the same. The assessee very well knew the charges / grounds for which he was being penalized and he actively contested the penalty before the Ld. AO. At this juncture, we find that the provisions of Section 292B comes to the rescue of the revenue which cures minor defect in the various notices issued provided such notice in substance and effect was in conformity with the intent and purpose of the act. On overall facts and circumstances, we find that such condition was fulfilled in the instant case. We find that the revenue's Special Leave Petition [SLP] dismissed by the Apex court in SSA'S Emerald Meadows (supra) confirmed the decision of Hon'ble High court, which in turn, relied upon the judgment rendered in Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (supra). The decision rendered by Hon'ble Bombay High court in Samson Perinchery (supra) also placed the reliance on this judgment. After perusing the ratio of the judgment rendered in Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (supra), we find that the assessee's appeal was allowed by Hon'ble High court after considering the multiple factors and not solely on the basis of defect in notice u/s 274. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the penalty could not be deleted merely on the basis of defect pointed by the Ld. AR in the notice and therefore, the legal grounds raised are rejected."

(I) CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (2013) 359 ITR 565 (Kar.)

(ii) Dilip N. Shroffv. JCIT (2007) 291 ITR 519 (SC) (iil) Commissioner of Income-tax v. Samson Pernchery (2017) 98 CCH 0039 (Bom.).

 (iv) CIT v. SSA's        Emerald Meadows 73
  Taxman.com 241 (Kar.)
         (v)  SSA's Emerald Meadows v. CIT 242 Taxman
  180 (SC)

Per contra, the Id. D.R submitted that the contentions advanced by the Id. A.R as regards the validity of the penalty proceedings not being maintainable, thus may not be admitted. The Id. D.R submitted that though the assessee was at a liberty to raise an objection, but however, the same had to be strictly confined as per Rule 27 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963. It was submitted by the Id. D.R that raising of an objection for the very first time by the Id. A.R during the course of the hearing of the appeal, and that too orally, without putting the revenue to notice in advance, could not be admitted. The Id. D.R to support his aforesaid contentions relied on the following judicial pronouncements:

2.18. The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in CIT Versus SSA'S Emerald Meadows in ITA No. 380 of 2015 order dated 23/11/2015, while dismissing the appeal of Revenuefollowed the decision of ClT Versus Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (supra). Against the judgment of Karnataka High Court the Revenue filed Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Apex Court and the same was dismissed vide SLP (CC No. 11485/2016) on 05/08/2016. There is no dispute to the settled proposition of law that dismissal of the Special Leave Petition in limineby Hon'ble Apex Court does not mean that the reasoning of the judgment of the High Court against which the Special Leave Petition has been filed before this Court stands affirmed or the judgment and order impugned merges with such order of this Court on dismissal of the petition. It simply means that Apex Court did not consider the case for worth examining for the reason, which may be other than merit of the case. Nor such an order of Apex Court operates as res-judicata. An order rejecting the Special Leave Petition at the threshold without detailed reasons therefore does not constitute any declaration of law or a binding precedent. And the similar view was expressed in various judgments, viz, A. The Workmen of Cochin Port Trust Vs The Board of Trustees of the Cochiti Port Trust &Anr AIR 1978 SC 1283; B. Ahmedabad Manufacturing & Calico Printing Co Ltd Vs The Workmen &Anr AIR 1981 SC 960;