9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 1543X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to Income Tax Act 271(1)(c). As per settled case laws non striking the irrelevant column in the notice issued u/s 18(1)(c) renders the notice invalid and consequent penalty required to be cancelled. - Decided in favour of assessee. - W.T.A. Nos. 23-25/Viz/2017, W. T. A. Nos. 26-29/Viz/2017 - - - Dated:- 23-2-2018 - Shri V. Durga Rao, Judicial Member And Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Accountant Member Appellant by : Shri G.V.N.Hari, AR Respondent by : Shri P.S.Murthy, DR ORDER Per D. S. Sunder Singh, Accountant Member These appeals are filed by the assessee against the orders of the Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeals)-10, [CWT(A)] Hyderabad vide dated 31.03.2017 related to the penalty imposed u/s 18(1)(c) of Wealth Tax A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Ld.CWT(A), the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. During the appeal hearing, the Ld.AR submitted that the value of the land was admitted at ₹ 6,000/- per sq.yd as per Sub Registrar value which is correct and there was no understatement of the value as on date. As per the provisions of the Wealth Tax Act, the market value of the asset as on the date of valuation required to be admitted but not the cost of the asset. Therefore, submitted that the assessee had admitted the value of the asset correctly, hence argued that the enhancement is uncalled for and the consequent penalty is also unjustifiable. The addition was agreed by the Ld.AR only to purchase peace with the department and to avoid protracted litigation. The LdA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of notice without application of mind. Therefore, argued that the notice issued by the Ld.CWT(A) is defective and covered by Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Principal CIT Visakhapatnam Vs. Baisetty Revati in I.T.T.A No.684 of 2016 on identical facts and argued the penalty imposed by the Ld.CWT(A) is required to be cancelled. 4. On the other hand, Ld.DR relied on the orders of the CWT(A). 5. We have heard both the cases and perused the material placed on record. In this case, the Ld.CWT(A) has issued show cause notice without striking the irrelevant column. The first paragraph of the penalty notice reads as under : whereas in the course of proceedings before me for the A.Y. 2008-09 it appears to me that you have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case of Gottumukala Satyanarayana in ITA No.229/Vizag/2015 dated 18.8.2017 cancelled the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c). For the sake convenience and clarity we extract the relevant part of the order hereunder: 8. We have heard both the parties, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. The A.O. made the addition of ₹ 16,00,185/- to the returned income related to unexplained investment and imposed the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The penalty proceedings were initiated during the assessment proceedings but in the assessment order the AO has not made noting with regard to which offence the penalty was initiated i.e. for furnishing of inaccurate particulars or the concealment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be pressed into service and cannot be permitted to club both byinterjecting an 'or' between the two, as in the present case. This ambiguity in the show-cause notice is further compounded presently by the confused finding of the Assessing Officer that he was satisfied that the assessee was guilty of both. We are therefore of the opinion that the order under appeal does not brook interference on any ground. We find no question of law, much less a substantial one, arising for consideration warranting admission of this appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. 9. On similar facts, this Tribunal in the case of M/s. Narayana Reddy Enterprises, Mandapeta Vs. ITO Ward-1, Kakinada in ITA No.229/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
