2019 (7) TMI 1035 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal cancels penalty order due to invalid notice, emphasizing clarity in penalty proceedings

Yaramati Veera Raghavulu Versus ITO, Ward-1, Rajamahendravaram.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, canceling the penalty order for the Assessment Year 2011-12. It held that the penalty notice issued by the Assessing ... Penalty u/sec. 271(1)(c) - Defective notice - non-striking of the irrelevant portion of the notice issued u/sec. 274 case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and assessment is completed under section 143(3) - HELD THAT:- It is not clear whether AO has initiated penalty proceedings for concealment of particulars of income or for furnished inaccurate particulars. Therefore, the notice issued by the Assessing Officer is a vague notice and is liable to be quashed in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Telangana & A.P. in the case of Smt. Baisetty Revathi [2017 (7) TMI 776 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] and SSA‟s Emerald Meadows [2016 (8) TMI 1145 - SC ORDER] has considered the validity of notice by following the above referred to judgments and held that notice issued by the Assessing Officer is not a valid notice and accordingly quashed - Decided in favour of assessee Issues:Validity of penalty notice under section 271(1)(c) - Whether notice specified the grounds clearly.Analysis:The appeal was filed against the penalty order passed for the Assessment Year 2011-12. The assessee raised an additional ground before the Tribunal questioning the validity of the penalty notice issued by the Assessing Officer. The notice did not clearly specify whether the penalty proceedings were for concealing income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The assessee argued that the vague notice was a legal issue crucial to the case. The Department objected to admitting this additional ground.The Tribunal referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. vs. CIT, emphasizing that legal questions arising from facts on record must be considered for assessing tax liability. Since no fresh investigation was needed, the Tribunal admitted the additional ground raised by the assessee.Regarding the validity of the penalty notice, the assessee argued that the notice was unclear, citing recent judgments. The Department contended that the notice was premature but valid, relying on a judgment of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court. The Tribunal examined the notice and found it vague, not specifying the grounds for penalty clearly as required by law. Citing relevant case laws, the Tribunal held that the notice was invalid, following the precedent set by the Hon'ble High Court of Telangana & A.P. and the Visakhapatnam tribunal. Consequently, the penalty order was cancelled, and the appeal by the assessee was allowed.In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision was based on the clarity and specificity required in penalty notices under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The judgment emphasized the importance of clearly stating the grounds for penalty to ensure the assessee's right to contest proceedings and meet the case of the revenue effectively. The decision was in line with recent judicial precedents, ensuring adherence to legal principles and upholding the assessee's rights in penalty proceedings.