9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (7) TMI 575 - AT - Income TaxPenalty u/s 271AAA - Defective notice u/s 274 - non specification of charge - HELD THAT - On perusal of the show cause notices issued by the Assessing Officer u/s 274 r.w.s. 271AAA dated 28/03/2012, which is placed on record of paper book, it is seen that the AO did not mention whether the notice is issued for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. As per the ratio laid down in the case of SSA s Emerald Meadows 2016 (8) TMI 1145 - SC ORDER , the notice issued by the Assessing Officer is not valid and consequently, the order passed u/s 271AAA is also not valid. Hence, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) and quash the order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 271AAA. We direct the AO to delete the penalty levied u/s 271AAA - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues:
Validity of penalty notice under section 271AAA of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Detailed Analysis: 1. Additional Grounds of Appeal: The assessee raised additional grounds challenging the validity of the penalty notice issued under section 271AAA of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal admitted these additional grounds based on legal precedents and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Co., Limited Vs. CIT. 2. Facts of the Case: Search and Seizure operations were conducted, leading to the discovery of undisclosed income related to a property purchase and marriage expenses. The Assessing Officer made additions to the income, which resulted in a penalty under section 271AAA of the Act. 3. Penalty Imposition: The Assessing Officer levied a penalty based on undisclosed income arising from various sources. The CIT(A) upheld the penalty, leading to the appeal before the ITAT. 4. Arguments: The assessee contended that the penalty notice was invalid as it did not specify the grounds for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The revenue authorities argued that the penalty was justified based on the undisclosed income and upheld by the ITAT. 5. Judgment: The ITAT referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. SSA's Emerald Meadows and held that the notice issued by the Assessing Officer under section 271AAA was not valid due to the lack of specifying the grounds for penalty initiation. Consequently, the penalty order was deemed invalid, and the appeal of the assessee was allowed. 6. Merits of the Case: Additionally, the ITAT found merit in the assessee's case based on a similar decision in the husband's case. The Tribunal directed the AO to delete the penalty imposed under section 271AAA, considering the unintentional omission of income in the assessment. 7. Final Decision: The ITAT allowed the appeal of the assessee, setting aside the penalty imposed under section 271AAA of the Act. The grounds raised by the assessee on legal and merits aspects were upheld, leading to the deletion of the penalty. In conclusion, the ITAT's judgment focused on the validity of the penalty notice under section 271AAA, ultimately ruling in favor of the assessee based on legal precedents and the lack of specificity in the notice issued by the Assessing Officer.
|
