TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (9) TMI 1331
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ome Tax Appellate Tribunal 'A' Bench, Chennai in I.T.A. No. 2104/Mds/2017 dated 25.01.2018 for the assessment year 2011-2012. 3. The appellant / revenue has filed the appeal raising the following substantial question of law: '1. Whether the Tribunal was right in deleting the penalty issued under Section 271(1)(c) merely on the ground that without adjudicating the case on merits, the AO has failed to specify the charges of the offence committed by the Assessee in the notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) wherein the concealed particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income were available? ' 4. We have elaborately heard Ms. R. Hemalatha, the learned senior standing c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f income by the assessee and it is a fit case to levy penalty under Section 271(1) (c) of the Act. Accordingly, a penalty of Rs.22,00,998/- was imposed on the assessee. 7. The assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 4, Chennai [CITA]. The appeal petition was dismissed by an order dated 20.06.2017. Challenging the order passed by the CITA, the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. Before the Tribunal, the assessee argued that the show cause notice issued by the assessing officer under Section 274 read with 271(1) of the Act was defective inasmuch as it did not contain the offence committed by the assessee, i.e., whether the assessee had concealed the particulars of his income or had furnished in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in [2018] 99 Taxmann.com 152 (SC). Further, it is submitted that the Tribunal placed reliance on the decision of the High Court of Karnataka in the case of SSA's Emerald Medows and that the Special Leave Petition filed by the Revenue before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dismissed. It is submitted that the Special Leave Petition was dismissed without assigning any reasons and therefore, the question of law is still open for consideration and the Tribunal ought to have taken note of the subsequent decisions on the point. 9. It is true that the assessee did not raise the contention that the penalty notice was defective at the earliest point of time. The question would be as to whe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he notice stated that it appears to the Assessing Officer that the assessee concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income. It is the argument that the word 'or' has been 12/24 used and not 'and' . The Assessing Officer did not apply his mind while issuing the notice to state as to whether he was of the prima facie view that the assessee concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore it is the submission that this defect is inherent, which goes to the root of the matter and all consequential proceedings would have to be rendered as nonest. Among the decisions, which were relied on by M/s. S.Yogalakshmi, learned counsel for the appellant, emphasi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g the defective notice was considered and answered against the assessee which is quoted herein below: 16. We have perused the notices and we find that the relevant columns have been marked, more particularly, when the case against the assessee is that they have concealed particulars of income and furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, the contention raised by the assessee is liable to be rejected on facts. That apart, this issue can never be a question of law in the assessee's case, as it is purely a question of fact. Apart from that, the assessee had at no earlier point of time raised the plea that on account of a defect in the notice, they were put to prejudice. All violations will not result in nullifying the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s and therefore the assessee cannot be permitted to raise a contention before this Court for the first time alleging defect in the notice. Thus, in the considered view of this Court, the assessee is precluded from raising any such contention regarding the validity of the notice.' 10. In both the cases, namely, Sundaram Finance Limited as well as in the case of Gangothri Textiles, they were corporate assessee having wherewithal to effectively manage their finances and getting the best brains to advice them on Income Tax matters. The assessee before us is a salaried person, who appears to have sold his property measuring a little over five grounds to his own employer. The assessee's states that the employer, though obtained the pow....