Laxmi Prasad Sahu ORDER
Chandra Mohan Garg, Member (J)
1. These appeals have been filed by the revenue against the separate orders both dated 4.12.2018 of the CIT(A), 2, Bhubaneswar for the assessment years 2010-11 & 2011-12.
2. In both the appeals, the grievance of the revenue is that the ld CIT(A) was not justified in deleting the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income tax Act, 1961 by following the decision of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. SSA's Emerald Meadows (2016) 73 taxmann.com 248 (SC).
3. At the time of hearing, ld Departmental Representative by referring to the grounds of appeal submitted that the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SSA's Emeralds Meadow (supra) is not binding on the department in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shanmugavael Nadar, MANU/SC/0833/2002 : 263 ITR 658 (SC), wherein, it is held that a rejection of SLP through a non-speaking order is not a binding precedent. He, therefore prayed that the orders of the ld CIT(A) be reversed by restoring the order of the AO.
4. Replying to above, ld Counsel for the assessee supported the orders of the ld CIT(A) and further submitted that in this case, both notices u/s. 274 r.w.s. 271 was issued on 29.12.2017 for the assessment year 2010-2011 and 2011-12 and the inappropriate words in the said notice have not been struck off. Therefore, it is not understood as to under which limb of provisions of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the Assessing Officer has levied penalty. Since the said show cause notices issued u/s. 274 did not specify the charge against the assessee as to whether it was for concealing the particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, therefore, the penalty orders passed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act in pursuance to the said notices were rightly reversed by ld CIT(A). The Ld. AR further submitted that the ld CIT(A) has followed the decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory reported in MANU/KA/2416/2012 : 359 ITR 565, which decision has been upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of CIT Vs. SSA's Emerald Meadows (2016) 73 Taxman.com 248 (SC). Therefore, it was his contention that there was no ambiguity and perversity in the orders of the ld CIT(A) to be interfered with and same may be upheld.
5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record, inter alia, notices u/s. 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 29.12.2017. We find the only issue to be decided in the grounds of appeal is regarding deletion of penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) on the ground of inappropriate words in the said notices have not been struck off. A perusal of the notices issued u/s. 274 r.w.s. 271 dated 29.12.2017 show that the inappropriate words in the said notice have not been struck off. Even the last line of the said notice only speaks of Section 271 and does not even mention of section