AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (10) TMI 76
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dravaram, dated 21/01/2019 for the Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. There is a delay of 09 days in filing this appeal. The Revenue has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons for delay. We have gone through the affidavit and find that there is a sufficient cause in non-filing the appeal in time. Therefore, it is a fit case to condone the delay. Accordingly, delay is condoned. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a co-operative society engaged in the business of banking, filed its return of income by declaring total income of Rs. 81,02,582/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the material available on record and orders of the authorities below. 9. The only issue for adjudication before us is whether the notice issued by the Assessing Officer dated 04/03/2014 is valid or not. For the sake of convenience, the notice is extracted as under:- "Whereas in the course of proceedings before me for the Assessment Year 2011-12, it appears to me that you:- (i) x x x x (ii) x x x x √ (iii) have concealed the particulars of your income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income." 10. From the above, it is not clear whether Assessing Officer has initiated penalty proceedings for concealment of particulars of income or for furnished inaccurate particulars. Therefore, the n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppears 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 o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ctive notice u/s 271(1)(c) but not the penalty order. Unless the notice issued u/s 271(1)(c) is valid the penalty order cannot be held to be valid. The assessing officer did not strike off the irrelevant column in the notice and made known the assessee whether the penalty was initiated for the concealment of income or for furnishing the inaccurate particulars. In the assessment order also the AO simply recorded that the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are initiated separately. Neither in the assessment order nor in the penalty notice, the assessing officer has put the assessee on notice for which offence, the penalty u/s 271 was initiated. Therefore, the case is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a Vs. ITO, Visakhapatnam in ITA Nos.604 & 605/Vizag/2014 dated 2.2.2017 held that non-striking of the irrelevant column renders the notice issued u/s 271 as invalid. Respectfully, following the decision of the Hon'ble AP High Court cited supra and the decision of this Tribunal cited (supra), we hold that the notice issued u/s 271 is invalid and consequent penalty imposed by the AO is cancelled. " 11. We find that the Hon'ble High Court of Telangana & A.P. in the case of Smt. Baisetty Revathi (supra) has considered the very same issue and held that non-striking of the irrelevant portion of the notice issued u/sec. 274 is invalid. The very same judgment has been followed by the coordinate bench of this tribunal in the case of Konchada ....