2019 (7) TMI 1027

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ross objections filed by the assessee for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2009-10, 2011-12 to 2013-14. Since the facts are identical, these appeals are clubbed, heard together and a common order is being passed for the sake of convenience as under. I.T.A. No.169-172/Viz/2018, A.Y.2009-10, 2011-12 to 2013-14 2. All the grounds of appeal are related to the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Since the facts are identical in all the appeals, the facts are extracted from the order pertaining to A.Y.2009-10. A search u/s 132 was conducted in the case of the assessee on 07.05.2014 and the assessments were completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A on total income as under for the impugned assessment years. A.Y. Total Income 2009-10 1,92,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....A Nos. 604 & 605/Viz/2014 dated 02.02.2017 and held that the penalty proceedings are not validly initiated, accordingly cancelled the penalty and allowed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Against the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the revenue filed appeal before this Tribunal. 5. We have heard both the parties and perused the material placed on record. In the instant case, the AO initiated penalty by issue of defective notice without striking irrelevant columns in the notice in the preprinted proforma thus causing ambiguity to the assessee for which act of the assessee the AO sought explanation whether it is for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars. It is settled issue by Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh (supra) th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....gain, the Assessing Officer has not specified as to which charge he is initiating penalty for, i.e., concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 5.4. It is well settled now that levy of penalty without indicating specific charge or imposing penalty on both counts is invalid. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of SSA's Emerald Meadows [2016] 73 Taxmann.com 248 (SC), affirmed, while, dismissing the SLP, the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of (Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory (2013) 359 ITA 565), wherein it was held that penalty proceedings are invalid if relevant limb/charge is not striked off. The decision of Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh & Telangana ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....g of the Assessing Officer that he was satisfied that the assessee was guilty of both. We are therefore of the opinion that the order under appeal does not brook interference on any ground. We find no question of law, much less a substantial one, arising for consideration warranting admission of this appeal" The jurisdictional tribunal ITAT, Visakhapatnam, by following the decision of the jurisdictional High Court mentioned supra decided very recently the cases of Konchada Sree Ram Vs ITO, W-1(1), Visakhapatnam, Smt.Makina Annapurna Vs. ITO. Visakhapatnam in ITA Nos.604 & 605/Vizag/2014 dated 02-02-2017. These judgements are squarely applicable to the case at hand, in view of the factual position, as discussed in paras 5.2 & 5.3 ab....