9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 1096X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Validity of the notice - from the reference to notice it is not clear whether Assessing Officer has initiated penalty proceedings for concealment of particulars of income or for furnished inaccurate particulars. Therefore, 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 the decision of SSA s Emerald Meadows [ 2016 (8) TMI 1145 - SC ORDER] . - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 56/VIZ/2019 - - - Dated:- 21-6-2019 - Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon ble Judicial Member And Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon ble Accountant Member For the Assessee : Shri G.V.N. Hari Advoca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lment of particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 5. Learned counsel for the assessee has submitted that the notice issued by the Assessing Officer dated 08/12/2011, is a vague notice and therefore, the additional ground raised before the tribunal is a legal issue, which goes to the root of the matter and therefore the same may be admitted. 6. On the other hand, learned Departmental Representative has raised an objection for admission of additional legal ground raised by the assessee. 7. We have heard both the sides, perused the material available on record and orders of the authorities below. 8. We find that the issue raised by the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le Jurisdictional High Court of Telangana A.P. in I.T.T.A. No. 684/2016 in PCIT Vs. Smt. Baisetty Revathi, dated 13/07/2017. 10. On the other hand, learned Departmental Representative has submitted that at the time of issuance of notice, the Assessing Officer is not sure about the penalty either for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Therefore, it is a premature notice and submitted that the notice issued by the Assessing Officer is a valid notice. 11. We have heard both the sides, perused the material available on record and orders of the authorities below. 12 The only issue for adjudication before us is whether the notice issued by the Assessing Officer dated 08 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f income. The department has conducted the survey u/s 133A and completed the assessment u/s 143(3) on total income of ₹ 15,43,041/- and initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c). The fact is that long term capital gains for sale of the property have come to the notice of the assessing officer because of the efforts made by the department. Therefore, the AO has initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) and issued show cause notice in the printed proforma of penalty. The AO has issued the penalty notice which reads as under : WHEREAS in the course of the proceeding before me for the Asst. Year 2007-08 it appears to me that you have concealed the particulars of your some or furnished inaccur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the tax liability. As the provisions of section 271(1)(c) have to be strictly construed, the Hon ble High court of Karnataka mandated that the notice issued should be set out the grounds which the assessee has to meet specifically, otherwise the principles of natural justice would be offended as the show cause notice would be vague. On the similar facts, Hon ble Supreme Court dismissed the SLP in the case of SSA s Emerald Meadows (2016) 73 Taxman.com 248(SC). Ld. DR s argument that the case is distinguishable on facts is not acceptable since the Ld. DR relied on the passing observation of the Hon ble High Court of AP. In the assessee s case, the issue is the defective notice u/s 271(1)(c) but not the penalty order. Unless the notice issu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... '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. 6.2. On the similar facts, the Coordinate Bench of ITAT, Visakhapatnam in ITA No.229/Viz/2015 in the case of Narayana Reddy Enterprises, following the order of the Coordinate Bench in the case of Smt. Makina Annapurna Vs. ITO, Visakhapatnam in ITA Nos. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
