2018 (3) TMI 1708

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Assessing Officer u/s.274 r.w.s.271 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ''the Act'') was legally flawed. According to him, the notice did not specify the reason why penalty proceeding were being initiated. As per the ld. Authorised Representative, notice did not say whether assessee had concealed particulars of income or had furnished any inaccurate particulars of income. Contention of the ld. Authorised Representative, was that a notice which did not show the default which assessee was required to explain, was an invalid one. Reliance was placed on the 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....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... READ WITH SECTION 271 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (Notice u/s 271(1)(c) PAN AAAFO 0104F Office of the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Business Circle -II, Room No.320, Wanaparthy Block, No.121, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai 600 034. Dated 17.03.2014. To M/s. Original Kerala Jewellers, No.74, Usman Road, T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. Whereas in the course of proceedings before me for the assessment year 2007 -08 it appears to me that you: have without reasonable cause failed to furnish me return of income which you are required to furnish by 0 notice given under Section 22( 1)/22(2)/34 of the Income-tax Act. 1922 or which you are required to furnish under Section 139 (1) or by a notice given under Section 139(2)/Sec....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... mention so, in the notice. Without knowing what is default for which he is being charged, an assessee cannot give explanation. In a similar situation Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of SSA's Emerald Meadows (supra), relying on its own judgment in the case of Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory (supra) held as under at para 2 to 4 of its judgment. ''2. This appeal has been filed raising the following substantial questions of law: (1) Whether, omission if assessing officer to explicitly mention that penalty proceedings are being initiated for furnishing of inaccurate particulars or that for concealment of income makes the penalty order liable for cancellation even when it has been proved beyond reasonable doubt that the assess....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....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 ....