9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (6) TMI 1297 - AT - Income TaxPenalty u/s 271(1)(c) - invalid notice issued u/s 274 - HELD THAT - Whether Assessing Officer has initiated penalty proceedings for concealment of particulars of income or for furnished inaccurate particulars. Therefore, the notice issued by the AO is a vague notice and is liable to be quashed in the light of the decision of Telangana A.P. in the case of Smt. Baisetty Revathi 2017 (7) TMI 776 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT and also the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SSA s Emerald Meadows 2016 (8) TMI 1145 - SC ORDER . The coordinate bench of the Visakhapatnam tribunal in the case of Konchada Sreeram Vs. ITO 2017 (7) TMI 776 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT 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. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues involved:
Validity of the notice issued by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Detailed Analysis: 1. Background: The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for the Assessment Year 2008-09, where the assessee declared a total loss in its income tax return. The assessment under section 143(3) resulted in an addition to the declared loss, leading to penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c). 2. Arguments: The key contention revolved around the clarity of the penalty notice issued by the Assessing Officer. The counsel for the assessee argued that the notice was vague, not specifying whether it was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. This ambiguity was challenged citing relevant judgments, including the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Jurisdictional High Court decisions. 3. Judicial Analysis: The tribunal examined the notice issued by the Assessing Officer and observed that it lacked clarity on the grounds for initiating penalty proceedings. Referring to precedents, including decisions by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Jurisdictional High Court, the tribunal emphasized the necessity for a clear and unambiguous notice specifying the grounds for penalty imposition. 4. Precedents: The tribunal cited previous cases where similar issues were addressed, emphasizing the importance of a valid notice under section 271(1)(c). Notably, the tribunal referenced a case where the notice was considered invalid due to the failure to strike off irrelevant columns, highlighting the need for precision in penalty notices. 5. Decision: Relying on the precedents and legal principles, the tribunal concluded that the notice issued by the Assessing Officer was invalid due to its ambiguity regarding the grounds for penalty imposition. Consequently, the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer was canceled. The cross objection filed by the assessee, being supportive of the appellate order, was dismissed as well. 6. Outcome: Ultimately, both the appeal by the Revenue and the cross objection by the assessee were dismissed, affirming the cancellation of the penalty based on the invalidity of the notice issued under section 271(1)(c). The tribunal's decision aligned with the legal requirements for clear and specific penalty notices to ensure fairness and adherence to natural justice principles. This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the core issue of the validity of the penalty notice under section 271(1)(c) and the tribunal's decision based on legal precedents and principles.
|
