Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

9. The above ratio laid down in the case of Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory(Supra) has been followed by various High courts in the below mentioned cases:-

i. Shri Samson Perinchery, ITA 1154,953,1097,1226 OF 2014 (Order date
- 5.01.2017)(Bombay High Court) ii. SSA'S Emerald Meadows[2016] 73 taxmann.com 241 (Karnataka High Court) iii. Mitsu Industries Ltd., ITA No. 216 of 2004, Gujarat High Court

10. SLP filed by the department against the said ratio was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SSA'S Emerald Meadows [2016] 73 taxmann.com 248 (SC). Hon'ble Apex Court in the above mentioned case held that "we do not find any merit in this petition". The special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed" (Emphasis Supplied). Thus the matter has stamp of approval of the Hon'ble Apex Court.

6. The above ratio laid down in the case of Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory(Supra) has been followed by various High courts in the below mentioned cases:-

(I) Shri Samson Perinchery, ITA 1154,953,1097,1226 OF 2014 (Order date - 5.01.2017)(Bombay High Court) (II) SSA'S Emerald Meadows[2016] 73 taxmann.com 241 (Karnataka High Court) (III) Mitsu Industries Ltd., ITA No. 216 of 2004, Gujarat High Court

7. SLP filed by the department against the said ratio was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SSA'S Emerald Meadows [2016] 73 taxmann.com 248 (SC). Hon'ble Apex Court in the above mentioned case held that "we do not find any merit in this petition". The special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed" (Emphasis Supplied). Thus the matter has stamp of approval of the Hon'ble Apex Court.

8. Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Sheveta Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd, ITA NO. 534/2008,

9. Hon'ble ITAT Jaipur Bench, in the following cases pronounced, followed the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the above- mentioned case and deleted the penalty levied on the assessee under section 271(1)(c) i. Mohd. Sharif Khan vs. DCIT, in ITA. No 441/JP/2014 ii. Jai Ambey Associates vs ITO in ITA No. 801/JP/2016'' Now after going through all the cases referred by me (supra), it is settled law that if one of the irrelevant limb in the notice for imposition of penalty is not struck off then it would mean that the AO was not sure while issuing the show cause notice as to whether he had proceeded on the basis that the assessee had concealed ITA NO. 540/JP/2023 SMT. JAMNA DEVI SHARMA VS ITO, WRD 7(2), JAIPUR her income or she had furnished the inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, if without being sure as to what the basis on which he is planning to impose penalty on assessee, such a notice would indicate non-application of mind and notice would not be valid. Although the ld DR has relied upon the decisions rendered by the Coordinate Bench of ITAT and Hon'ble High Courts (supra) but the facts from those cases pari materia are altogether different and thus the same are not applicable to the facts of the present case. However, the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court decision in the case of Manjunatha Cotto & Ginning Factory (supra) has categorically held that notice without striking off the relevant clause will lead to an inference as to non-application of mind and this judgement was valid in the cases of Shri Samson Perinchery and SSA's Emerald Meadows (supra) and even the SLP filed by the Department against the said ratio was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SSA'S Emerald Meadows [2016] 73 Taxmann.com 248n (SC) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court clearly mentioned that they find no merits in the petition filed by the Department. Accordingly, Special Leave Petition filed by the Department was dismissed. Thus, in this was the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also approved the view taken by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of SSA'S Emerald Meadows (supra). Even otherwise the Jurisdictional High Court of Rajasthan in the case of Sheveta Construction Co. Pvt Ltd. (ITA No. 534/2008) has categorically mentioned at para 9 of its order that AO has to give a ITA NO. 540/JP/2023 SMT. JAMNA DEVI SHARMA VS ITO, WRD 7(2), JAIPUR notice as to whether he proposes to levy penalty for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars but s he cannot have both the conditions and if it is so he has to say so in the notice and record a finding in the penalty order.