TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (4) TMI 1553
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at notice issued to the assessee u/s.274 r.w.s. Section 271AAB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ''the Act'') was vague. According to him, the reason for initiating the penalty proceeding was not clear from such income. As per the Ld. Authorised Representative, by virtue of judgments of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory, 359 ITR 565 and that of CIT vs. SSA's Emerald Meadows (ITA No.380/2015, dated 23.11.2015. proceedings based on a vague penalty notice were void. Ld. Authorised Representative, pointed out that the judgment of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of SSA's Emerald Meadows (supra) stood affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in CC No.11485 of 2017 dated 05.08.2016. Ld. Authorised Representative submitted that assessee had raised a ground before the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)questioning the validity of the notice. As per the ld. Authorised Representative, though ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) reduced the levy of penalty under section 271 AAB from 30% to 10%, he had not disposed off the ground assailing the validity of the notice issued to the assessee. Contention of the ld. Authorised R....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h income. *have undisclosed income within the meaning of section 271AAB of the IT Act. You are hereby requested to appear before me at 10.30 AM on 12/09/2014and show cause why an order imposing a penalty on you should not be made under section 271 of the Income-tax Act 1961. If you do not wish to avail yourself of this opportunity of being heard in person or through authorized representative you may show cause in writing on or before the said date which will be considered before any such order is made under section 271. (A. ANANDA KUMAR, IRS) Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -I, Coimbatore. Ld. Assessing Officer had not scored out any one of the two limbs in such notice, viz have concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income or have undisclosed income within the meaning of Section 271AAB of the Act. Nor did he specifically mention, on which clause assessee was answerable. No doubt the caption of the notice do mentioned that it was being issued u/s.274 r.w.s. 271AAB of the Act. Section 271AAB is reproduced hereunder:- '' (1) The Assessing Officer may, notwithstanding anything contained in any other provisi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng the return of income under sub-section (1) of section 139 for such year has not expired before the date of search and the assessee has not furnished the return of income for the previous year before the date of search ; or (ii) in which search was conducted ; (c) "undisclosed income" means- (i) any income of the specified previous year represented, either wholly or partly, by any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing or any entry in the books of account or other documents or transactions found in the course of a search under section 132, which has- (A) not been recorded on or before the date of search in the books of account or other documents maintained in the normal course relating to such previous year ; or (B) otherwise not been disclosed to the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner before the date of search ; or (ii) any income of the specified previous year represented, either wholly or partly, by any entry in respect of an expense recorded in the books of account or other documents maintained in the normal course relating to the specified previous year which is found to be false and would not have been found to be so had the search no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y proceedings had been initiated i.e., whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The Tribunal, while allowing the appeal of the assessee, has relied on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in the case of CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory (2013) 359 ITR 565. 4. In our view, since the matter is covered by judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, we are of the opinion, no substantial question of law arises in this appeal for determination by this Court. The appeal is accordingly dismissed''. In the earlier case of Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory (supra) their lordship had observed as under:- ''Notice under section 274 of the Act should specifically state the grounds mentioned in section 271(1)(c) , i.e., whether it is for concealment of income or for furnishing of incorrect particulars of income. Sending printed form where all the grounds mentioned in section 271 are mentioned would not satisfy the requirement of law ; The assessee should know the grounds which he has to meet specifically. Otherwise, the principles of natural justice are offended. On the basis of such proc....