9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (1) TMI 1409 - AT - Income TaxPenalty u/s 271(1)(c) - validity of notice - whether Assessing Officer has initiated penalty proceedings for concealment of particulars of income or for furnished inaccurate particulars? - Held that - The notice issued by the Assessing Officer is a vague notice and is liable to be quashed in the light of the decision of Smt. Baisetty Revathi 2017 (7) TMI 776 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT and also SSA s Emerald Meadows 2016 (8) TMI 1145 - SUPREME COURT . The coordinate bench in the case of Konchada Sreeram Vs. ITO 2017 (11) TMI 1164 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM 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. Thus we hold that the notice issued under section 271 read with section 274 is invalid and, therefore penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer is cancelled. - Decided in favour of assessee
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the notice issued under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Deletion of the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the notice issued under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961: The primary issue for adjudication was whether the notice issued by the Assessing Officer (AO) dated 28/02/2014 was valid. The notice was examined to determine if it clearly specified the grounds for which the penalty was being imposed—either for "concealment of particulars of income" or for "furnishing inaccurate particulars of such income." The Tribunal noted that the notice was vague as it did not strike off the irrelevant portion, thereby failing to specify the exact charge against the assessee. This ambiguity in the notice was deemed to violate the principles of natural justice, as it did not provide the assessee with a clear opportunity to defend against the specific charge. The Tribunal relied on several precedents, including the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Smt. Baisetty Revathi, which held that the specific ground for penalty must be clearly stated in the notice. The Tribunal also referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SSA’s Emerald Meadows, which supported the view that a vague notice is invalid. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the notice issued under section 271 read with section 274 was invalid, leading to the cancellation of the penalty imposed by the AO. 2. Deletion of the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals): The Revenue appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Visakhapatnam [CIT(A)], which had deleted the penalty of ?92,31,310/- levied under section 271(1)(c). The CIT(A) had relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. SSA’s Emerald Meadows and the Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory, which emphasized the necessity for the AO to be specific about the grounds for penalty in the notice. The CIT(A) found that the AO had not clearly indicated whether the penalty was for "concealment of particulars of income" or for "furnishing inaccurate particulars of income," making the notice invalid. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the notice was vague and thus invalid. The Tribunal reiterated that the AO must be unequivocal and unambiguous in specifying the charge in the penalty notice to provide the assessee a fair chance to respond. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue and upheld the CIT(A)'s order canceling the penalty. The cross objection filed by the assessee, which was supportive of the CIT(A)'s order, was also dismissed as infructuous in light of the Tribunal's decision. The Tribunal's decision was pronounced in open court on January 25, 2019.
|
