9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 1727X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty could not be sustained. In CIT vs. Smt. Kaushalya [ 1995 (1) TMI 25 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] has held that The vagueness and ambiguity in the notice had also prejudiced the right of reasonable opportunity of the assessee since he did not know what exact charges he had to face. In this background, quashing of the penalty proceedings for the assessment year 1967-68 seems to be fully justified. We hold that the notice issued by the AO u/s 274 r.w.s. 271 for the AY 2003-04 for initiating penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act in the present case is invalid. The order of the CIT(A) directing the AO to impose penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is thus set aside. Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .12.2009 by the AO (p.40-41 of the Paper Book). At the end of the notice, it has been mentioned that inappropriate words and paragraph should be deleted. The AO has not done so. In fact in the said notice, "have concealed the particulars of your income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income" are appearing. There is no denial above fact by the ld. DR. 5.1 In CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory (supra), the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court held that 'Notice under Section 274 of the Act should specifically state the grounds mentioned in Section 271(l)(c), i.e., whether it is for concealment of income or for furnishing of incorrect particulars of income.' The ITAT "H" Bench Mumbai in the case of Sanghavi Savla Commodity Broke ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ticulars of income by assessee or whether any inaccurate particulars of income had been furnished, order of penalty could not be sustained.' 5.4 In CIT vs. Smt. Kaushalya [1994] 75 Taxman 549 (Bom.), the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has held that 'The vagueness and ambiguity in the notice had also prejudiced the right of reasonable opportunity of the assessee since he did not know what exact charges he had to face. In this background, quashing of the penalty proceedings for the assessment year 1967-68 seems to be fully justified.' 6. Respectfully following the above decisions, we hold that the notice dated 30.12.2009 issued by the AO u/s 274 r.w.s. 271 of the Act for the AY 2003-04 for initiating penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
