AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (10) TMI 926
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ring net loss of Rs. 43,52,910/- after claiming depreciation on the building at 25%. According to the Assessing Officer, the assessee is only eligible for claim of depreciation at 10%, therefore, he issued a notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') and the same is served on the assessee. However, the assessee has not appeared before the Assessing Officer, therefore, the Assessing Officer disallowed excess depreciation claimed by the assessee. Subsequently, he initiated the penalty proceedings by issuing a notice under section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) dated 31/12/2008. Even during the penalty proceedings, the assessee has not appeared before the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the Assessing Of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (229 ITR 383) has considered the issue and held that „where the tribunal is only required to consider a question of law arising from the facts which are on record in the assessment proceedings we fail to see why such a question should not be allowed to be raised when it is necessary to consider that question in order to correctly assess the tax liability of an assessee‟. From the above, it is very clear that there is no fresh investigation on facts is required, the additional ground raised by the assessee has to be adjudicated, hence, the same has to be admitted by following the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd., (supra), the addit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessing Officer dated 31/12/2008 is valid or not. For the sake of convenience, the operative part of the notice is extracted as under:- "Whereas in the course of proceedings before me for the Assessment Year 2005-06 you:- x x x x x x x x x x * have concealed the particulars of your income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income." 13 From the above, it is not clear whether Assessing Officer has initiated penalty proceedings for concealment of particulars of income or for furnished inaccurate particulars, however, the Assessing Officer has imposed penalty for filing of inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, the notice issued by the Assessing Officer is a vague notice and is liable to be quashed in the light of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....6.1. From the notice issued by the AO, it is observed that the assessing officer had issued the notice for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars. As per the notice, the assessing officer was not sure of which limb of the offence he sought the explanation from the assessee, whether it was for the concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars. As per the decision of the Hon‟ble Jurisdictional High Court cited, for starting the penalty proceedings, the condition precedent is that the assessing officer must be satisfied that a person has either concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. The person who is accused of the conditions mentioned in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../s 271(1)(c) is valid the penalty order cannot be held to be valid. The assessing officer did not strike off the irrelevant column in the notice and made known the assessee whether the penalty was initiated for the concealment of income or for furnishing the inaccurate particulars. In the assessment order also the AO simply recorded that the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are initiated separately. Neither in the assessment order nor in the penalty notice, the assessing officer has put the assessee on notice for which offence, the penalty u/s 271 was initiated. Therefore, the case is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon‟ble Jurisdictional High Court of cited (supra) wherein the Hon‟ble high court held as under: "O....