9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 1553X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ition is on record. Delay is condoned and appeal admitted. 2. Cross Objection of the assessee assails levy of penalty for the impugned assessment year for a reason that notice issued for levy of penalty was ambiguous and was not valid due to this infirmity. Since assessee had questioned the very validity of initiation of the penalty, this is considered first. 3. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that notice issued to the assessee u/s.274 r.w.s. Section 271AAB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ''the Act'') was vague. According to him, the reason for initiating the penalty proceeding was not clear from such income. As per the Ld. Authorised Representative, by virtue of judgments of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory (supra) SSA's Emerald Meadows (supra). Further, as per the ld. Departmental Representative, ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had reduced the penalty levied on the assessee from 30% to 10% and the Department was in appeal against such reduction. 5. We have considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the authorities below. Notice issued to the assessee u/s.274 r.w.s.271 AAB of the Act is reproduced hereunder:- NOTICE UNDER SECTION 274 READ WITH SECTION 271AAB OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 PAN: AADPE1841Q Office of Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-I, Coimbatore. Date: 13.08.2014 To Shri.R.Elangovan 821/2, Kallipalay ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A. ANANDA KUMAR, IRS) Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -I, Coimbatore. Ld. Assessing Officer had not scored out any one of the two limbs in such notice, viz have concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income or have undisclosed income within the meaning of Section 271AAB of the Act. Nor did he specifically mention, on which clause assessee was answerable. No doubt the caption of the notice do mentioned that it was being issued u/s.274 r.w.s. 271AAB of the Act. Section 271AAB is reproduced hereunder:- '' (1) The Assessing Officer may, notwithstanding anything contained in any other provisions of this Act, direct that, in a case where search has been initiated under section 132 on o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rovisions of clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 271 shall be imposed upon the assessee in respect of the undisclosed income referred to in sub-section (1). (3) The provisions of sections 274 and 275 shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to the penalty referred to in this section. Explanation For the purposes of this section,- (a) "specified date" means the due date of furnishing of return of income under sub-section (1) of section 139 or the date on which the period specified in the notice issued under section 153A for furnishing of return of income expires, as the case may be ; (b) "specified previous year" means the previous year- (i) which has ended before the date of search, but the date of furnishing the return of income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nity that is to be given to the assessee should be a meaningful one and not a farce. Notice issued to the assessee reproduced (supra), does not show whether penalty proceedings were initiated for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or for having undisclosed income within the meaning of Section 271AAB of the Act. Notice in our opinion was vague. Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of SSA's Emerald Meadows (supra) relying in its own judgment in the case of Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory (supra) had held as under:- ''2. This appeal has been filed raising the following substantial questions of law: (1) Whether, omission if assessing officer to explicitly mention that penalty proceedings are bei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as relied on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in the case of CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory (2013) 359 ITR 565. 4. In our view, since the matter is covered by judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, we are of the opinion, no substantial question of law arises in this appeal for determination by this Court. The appeal is accordingly dismissed''. In the earlier case of Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory (supra) their lordship had observed as under:- ''Notice under section 274 of the Act should specifically state the grounds mentioned in section 271(1)(c) , i.e., whether it is for concealment of income or for furnishing of incorrect particulars of income. Sending printed form where all the gr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
