Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2020 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (8) TMI 177 - AT - Income TaxPenalty u/s. 271AAA - difference in the assessed income and returned on account - CIT(A) restricted the penalty being the addition finally sustained by him on account of valuation of the three ladies watches - HELD THAT:- We find that the order of the CIT(A) giving relief to the assessee on various addition except the addition on account of watches has attained finality in view of the dismissal of the appeal filed by the revenue in the quantum appeal. Therefore, the penalty deleted by the CIT(A) on account of the various additions made by the AO in the assessment order does not call for any interference and accordingly the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed. Defective notice - notice issued u/s. 274 r.w.s 271 AAA shows that such notice does not mention the particular limb of explanation to section 271AAA defining “undisclosed income for which penalty is proposed to be levied. Rather such notice reproduces the language under the scope of section 271 (1) (c) and not section 271AAA. Therefore, such notice in our opinion is vague and has to be treated as invalid. Since this notice clearly shows the non application of mind on the part of the AO and there is no specific ground on which penalty proceeding is initiated, therefore, following the decisions in the case of CIT Vs. Manjunath Cotton and Ginning Factory [2013 (7) TMI 620 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] and SSA’s Emerald Meadows [2016 (8) TMI 1145 - SC ORDER] the penalty notice issued u/s. 274 r.w.s 271 AAA is bad in law and, therefore, is invalid. - Decided in favour of assessee.
|