TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (1) TMI 1409
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e cases of CIT Vs Chandulal (152 ITR 238) and Srinivasa Pitty & Sons Vs CIT (173 ITR 306) wherein it was held that mere failure to strike-off inappropriate portion in a notice will not render it invalid? 3. Ld. CIT(A) ought to have further considered that decision of Hon'ble AP High Court in the case of Baisetty Revathi relied upon by CIT(A) overlooking the decision in the cases cited supra is a decision rendered per incuriam. 4. Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that mere dismissal of SLP filed by the Revenue in the case of CIT Vs SSA's Emerald Meadows (73 Taxmann 248) without laying down any la on the subject cannot be said to be declaration of law by the Supreme Court (263 ITR 658). 5. The appellant craves leave to add or amend or alter or delete any ground at the time of hearing of the appeal. 6. For these and other grounds that may be urged at the time of appeal hearing, the appellant prays that the impugned penalty levied by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act he restored." 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee, a closely held company with two directors namely; Chilukuri Srinivas and Smt. Chilukuri Neelima and h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r in issuing notice under section 271 r.w.s. 274, dated 28/02/2014, therefore, prayed that same has to be quashed. The ld. CIT(A) by considering the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Smt. Baisetty Revathi (supra) held that notice issued by the Assessing Officer under section 271 is invalid and cancelled the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer. For the sake of convenience, the relevant portion of the order is extracted as under:- "4.1. I have considered the above petition. As this gbround of appeal raises legal issues, I consider it appropriate to admit this additional ground. Accordingly, the same is admitted for adjudication. 5. During the appeal hearing, the AR in addition to the submissions made in the above petition, contended that it is obligatory on the part of the AO to issue the notice for which limb of the offence, the assessee is required to furnish the explanation. It was further contended that the AO must be satisfied that a person has either concealed the particulars of income or furnished the inaccurate particulars as it should be made known to the assessee in the notice calling for explanation. The AR also file....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rook interference on any around. We find no question of law, much less a substantial one, arising for consideration warranting admission of this appeal. 6.2 On the similar facts, the Hon'ble ITAT in the case of Konchada Sreeram (ITA No. 388/VIzag/2015) following the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court cited (supra) and its own decision in the cases of Narayana Reddy Enterprises (229/Viz/2015) and Smt. Makina Annapurna (ITA Nos. 604 & 605/Vizag/2014) held that non-striking of the irrelevant column renders the notice issued u/s. 271 as invalid." 5. On being aggrieved, the department is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Ld. Departmental Representative has submitted that at the time of issuance of notice, the Assessing Officer is not sure about the penalty either for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Therefore, it is a premature notice and submitted that the notice issued by the Assessing Officer is a valid notice. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the assessee has relied on the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) and also the decision of the coordinate bench of the tribunal in the case of Konchada Sreeram Vs. ITO in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....articulars of such income." 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 Section 271 should be made aware of the grounds on which imposition of penalty is proposed as he has a right to contest such proceedings and should have the full opportunity to meet the case of the revenue so as to show that the conditions stipulated in Section 271(1)(c) do not exist and that he is not liable to pay the penalty. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case law cited held that the practice of the ....