TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (2) TMI 934
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....laring total income of Rs. 12,34,930/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and assessment was completed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') on 31/12/2009 by making certain additions. Subsequently, penalty notice u/sec. 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, dated 31/12/2009 was issued and thereafter penalty order u/sec. 271(1)(c) was passed on 31/10/2012. 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. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order dt 31-10-2012 levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is liable to be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ditional 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. 9. Now coming to the validity of the notice issued by the Assessing Officer dated 31/12/2009. 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he case of Smt. Baisetty Revathi (supra) and also the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SSA‟s Emerald Meadows (supra). 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion of penalty is proposed as he has a right to contest such proceedings and should have the full opportunity to meet the case of 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 HonR....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by the revenue under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act of 1961, the specific ground which forms the foundation therefore has to be spelt out in clear terms Otherwise, on assessee 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 ....