1 TXA13-19dt.03.02.2020 IN HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA TAX APPEAL NO. 13 OF 2019 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), BENGALURU Appellant Versus GOLDEN PEACE HOTELS AND RESORTS PVT. LTD. Respondent Ms. Amira Abdul Razaq, Standing Counsel for Appellant. Mr. Parag S. Rao, Advocate for Respondent. Coram:- M. S. SONAK & SMT. M. S. JAWALKAR, JJ. Date:- 3rd February, 2020 Oral Order (Per M. S. Sonak, J) Heard Ms Razaq, learned Advocate for Appellant and Mr. Rao, learned Advocate for Respondent. 2. Ms. Razaq, learned Advocate for Appellant urges admission of this appeal on following substantial question of law:- i) Whether on facts and in circumstances of case, Tribunal is right in law and fact, in deleting penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961? 3. Ms Razaq, learned Advocate submits that in this case revised returns filed by Respondents indicated that disclosures 2 TXA13-19 dt.03.02.2020 were made only by piecemeal. Relying upon Mak Data (P.) Ltd v/s. Commissioner of Income Tax1, she submits that such disclosure does not relieve assessee of requirement of paying penalty. She submits that assessment order in present case makes reference to concealment and/or inaccurate particulars. In this view of matter, she submits that substantial question of law as aforesaid will arise and view taken by Commissioner (Appeals) as well as ITAT in relation to deletion of penalty, warrants interference. 4. Mr Rao, learned Advocate for assessee points out that there is absolutely no finding as regards concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. He further points out that in notice issued to assessee on 30/09/2016, Deputy Commissioner had not even bothered to strike down relevant portion of printed form in order to indicate whether satisfaction is based upon concealment of particulars or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. He relies on Commissioner of Income Tax-11 v/s. Shri Samson Perinchery 2 and Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v/s. New Era Sova Mine 3 to submit that on basis of such defective notice, award of penalty can never be sustained. 5. We have carefully examined record as well as duly 1 [(2013) 38 Taxman.com 448 (SC) 2 [(017) 392 ITR 4] 3 [2019 SCC OnLine Bom 1032] 3 TXA13-19dt.03.02.2020 considered rival contentions. Both Commissioner (Appeals) as well as ITAT have categorically held that in present case, there is no record of satisfaction by Assessing Officer that there was any concealment of income or that any inaccurate particulars were furnished by assessee. This being sine qua non for initiation of penalty proceedings, in absence of such satisfaction, two authorities have quite correctly ordered dropping of penalty proceedings against assessee. 6. Besides, we note that Division Bench of this Court in Samson (supra) as well as in New Era Sova Mine (supra) has held that notice which is issued to assessee must indicate whether Assessing Officer is satisfied that case of assessee involves concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income or both, with clarity. If notice is issued in printed form, then, necessary portions which are not applicable are required to be struck off, so as to indicate with clarity nature of satisfaction recorded. In both Samson Perinchery and New Era Sova Mine (supra), notices issued had not struck off portion which were inapplicable. From this, Division Bench concluded that there was no proper record of satisfaction or proper application of mind in matter of initiation of penalty proceedings. 4 TXA13-19dt.03.02.2020 7. In present case, as well if notice dated 30/09/16 (at page 32) is perused, it is apparent that inapplicable portions have not been struck off. This coupled with fact adverted to in paragraph (5) of this order, leaves no ground for interference with impugned order. impugned order is quite consistent with law laid down in case of Samson Perinchery and New Era Sova Mine (supra) and therefore, warrants no interference. 8. contention based upon MAK Data (P.) Ltd.(supra) also does not appeal to us in peculiar facts of present case. notice in present case is itself defective and further, there is no finding or satisfaction recorded in relation to concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. 9. In Tax Appeal No.24 of 2019, based upon identical facts, we decline to admit appeal, in which, same substantial question of law was urged. Therefore, following our order in Tax Appeal No.24 of 2019 as well, we are not inclined to admit this appeal. 10. For aforesaid reasons, we hold that no substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Consequently, this appeal is dismissed. SMT. M. S. JAWALKAR, J. M. S. SONAK, J. at* Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (Central), Bengaluru v. Golden Peace Hotels And Resorts Pvt. Ltd