TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (5) TMI 1157
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s completed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') by treating the deposits into the bank account as income of the assessee. The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings by issuing a notice u/s. 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act and subsequently levied penalty of Rs. 39,700/-. 3. On appeal, ld. CIT(A) confirmed the penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee has raised the following additional ground before the Tribunal. "The ld.CIT(A) ought to have seen that the penalty notice is not valid as the Assessing Officer did not strike off the inappropriate portion and consequently the levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) is not valid" 5. Learn....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... following the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd., (supra), the additional ground raised by the assessee is admitted. 9. Now coming to the validity of the notice issued by the Assessing Officer dated 27/12/2011. In this context, learned counsel for the assessee has submitted that the notice issued by the Assessing Officer is not clear whether notice issued under section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) is for concealment of income or furnished inaccurate particulars. Therefore, the notice issued by the Assessing Officer is not a valid notice in the light of the latest judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. SSA's Emerald Meadows [(2016) 73 taxman.com 248 (SC)] and also th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a). The coordinate bench of the Visakhapatnam tribunal in the case of Konchada Sreeram Vs. ITO in ITA No. 388/VIZ/2015, by order dated 06/10/2017 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. For the sake of convenience, the relevant portion of the order is extracted as under:- 6. We have heard both the parties and perused the material placed on record. In this case, the assessee has not filed the return of income. The department has conducted the survey u/s 133A and completed the assessment u/s 143(3) on total income of Rs. 15,43,041/- and initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c). The fact is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f 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 revenue in sending the printed form where all the grounds mentioned in 271(1)(c) are mentioned would not satisfy the requirement of law when the consequence of the assessee not rebutting the initial presumption is serious in nature and has to pay the penalty ranging from 100% to 300% of the tax liability. As the provisions of section 271(1)(c) have to be strictly construed, the Hon'ble High court of Karnataka mandated that the notice issued should be set out the grounds which the assessee has to meet specifically, oth....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....see would not have proper opportunity to put forth his defence. When the proceedings are penal in nature resulting in imposition of penalty ranging from 100% to 300% of the tax liability, the charge must be unequivocal and unambiguous. When the charge is either concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars thereof, the revenue must specify as to which one of the two is sought to be pressed into service and cannot be permitted to club both by interjecting an 'or' between the two, as in the present case. This ambiguity in the show-cause notice is further compounded presently by the confused finding of the Assessing Officer that he was satisfied that the assessee was guilty of both. We are theref....