9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (1) TMI 879X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... learly stipulates that the Assessing Officer is supposed to strike off the irrelevant portion and specify Whether the assessee has concealed the particulars of income or Whether the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income or Whether the assessee has concealed particulars of income and furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Merely because the show-cause notice had mentioned that assessee had concealed its particulars in bold letters that alone would not suffice the requirements. The assessee cannot be expected to know or understand the mind of the Assessing Officer that the Assessing Officer is expecting reply from the assessee only on the aspect of assessee concealing particulars of income. Assessee on the safe si ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on which the revenue had preferred Miscellaneous Application before us. 3. Before us, the ld. DR submitted that though it is a fact that in the show-cause notice, the Assessing Officer had not struck off the irrelevant portion, but the Assessing Officer had duly highlighted the offence of assessee concealing its particulars of income in bold letters in the said show-cause notice which amounts to correct action on the part of the Assessing Officer; though assessee was duly intimated of his offence and that no prejudice has been caused to the assessee in this regard as assessee had duly participated in the penalty proceedings and had filed reply thereon. He also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Smt. Baisetty Revathi reported in 398 ITR 88. The ld. AR also pointed out that in the case of assessee s sister concern i.e. Radhakrishna Roadways case which has been relied upon by this Tribunal, the revenue had preferred a miscellaneous application on exactly identical grounds and the same was dismissed by this Tribunal in MA No.464/Mum/2019 dated 21/11/2019. In the instant case before us also the ld. AR submitted that assessee had filed a reply dated 31/08/2013 before the Assessing Officer in response to show-cause notice issued for levy of penalty on the understanding that the ld. AO had initiated penalty proceedings for both the offences i.e. assessee had concealed particulars of i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of income or c. Whether the assessee has concealed particulars of income and furnished inaccurate particulars of income. 5.2. The offence mentioned above is mandatorily required to be specified in the said show-cause notice issued by the Assessing Officer, so that assessee would be able to reply in response to that specific offence thereon. Merely because the show-cause notice had mentioned that assessee had concealed its particulars in bold letters that alone would not suffice the requirements. The assessee cannot be expected to know or understand the mind of the Assessing Officer that the Assessing Officer is expecting reply from the assessee only on the aspect of assessee concealing particulars of income. In that background, the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hlighted. Therefore, learned D.R. prayed that the said order may kindly be recalled as having prima facie apparent mistake. 3. The learned A.R. of the assessee on the other hand, strongly opposed the arguments of the learned D.R. by stating that the said arguments were never raised during the course of hearing before the Bench and for the first time was being raised by way of Miscellaneous Application. Referring to the provisions of section 254(2) of the Act, the learned A.R. of the assessee stated that the scope of the section is very limited and certainly two opinions are possible from the format and language used in the notice by referring to the notice wherein one part is highlighted and the other is not highlighted. The learned A. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... second limb has not been struck off, and this argument has been taken for the first time by way of this Miscellaneous Application only . We also perused the reply of the assessee dated 31.08.2013 wherein the assessee has understood the notice to mean that penalty proceedings has been understood by the assessee to be proposed for both the limbs. The relevant part of the reply is reproduced as under:- Radhakrishna Roadway Private Limited (the assessee or the Company) is in receipt of your Notice dated 28th March,2013 u/s.274 r.w.s.271 of the Income Tax Act,1961, stating as to why penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act should not be levied for having concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income. It i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
