TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (8) TMI 454
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt of his wife. 3. While it is so, the case of the appellant firm was taken up for scrutiny and assessment was completed on 30.03.2014 by disallowing the deduction of Rs. 28,57,274/- claimed towards Research and Development expenditure u/s 35(2AB)(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appellant entrusted the matter of filing and representing the appeal to a Chartered Accountant in Vizianagaram. 4. During the year 2014, one of the partners, Smt P. Satya Shanti (copy of partnership deed enclosed) who is also the sister of managing partner SriP.B. Srinvias was also found to be suffering from breast cancer. She was already a heart patient. 5. In the meanwhile, the assessing officer had taken up the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. In the circumstances explained above, the appellant could neither appear nor could request the assessing officer to keep the penalty proceedings in abeyance till the disposal of the appeal preferred against the assessment order. 6. The assessing officer levied a penalty of Rs. 11,87,836/ u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act vide order dt.26.09.2014. The appellant filed an appeal against the penalty order but there was a dela....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he circumstances explained above which were beyond the control of the appellant. The delay is neither intentional nor deliberate. Therefore, it is respectfully prayed that the said delay of 419 days may kindly be condoned and appropriate orders may kindly be passed in the interests of substantial justice. 3. From the above, it is very clear that wife of Sri P.B. Srinivas, who is the Managing Partner of the firm is suffered with cancer, not only that another partner Smt. P. Satya Shanti, who is the sister of Sri P.B. Srinivas was also found suffering from breast cancer. She was already a heart patient. As her condition was serious, taken to Apollo hospitals in Ahmedabad and Sri P.B. Srinivas being the only brother, had to attend her treatment. Ultimately she died on 04/06/2017. Under these facts and circumstances of the case, the assessee has not drawn attention on the order passed by the ld. CIT(A). When the Income-tax Department pursued the matter in respect of collection of tax, it came to the notice of the assessee and immediately filed appeal against the order of the ld. CIT(A). By considering the affidavit filed by the assessee and also the details explained by the asses....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 additional ground raised by the assessee is admitted. 11. Now coming to the validity of the notice issued by the Assessing Officer dated 30/03/2014. 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 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 the Hon'ble High Court of Telangana & A.P. in I.T.T.A. No. 684/2016 in Pr.CIT Vs. Smt. Baisetty Revathi, dated 13/07/2017. 12. On the other hand, learned Departmental Representative has submitted that at the time of issuance of not....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....partment. Therefore, the AO has initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) and issued show cause notice in the printed proforma of penalty. The AO has issued the penalty notice which reads as under : "WHEREAS in the course of the proceeding before me for the Asst. Year 2007-08 it appears to me that you have concealed the particulars of your some or furnished inaccurate particulars 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dation therefore has to be spelt out in clear terms Otherwise, on assesee 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 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." 6.2. On the similar facts, the Coordinate Bench of ITAT, Visakhapatnam in ITA No.229/Viz/2015 in the case of Narayana Reddy Enterprises, following the order of ....