TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 670X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate the other grounds raised by the assessee. - I.T.A.No.20/VIZ/2019 - - - Dated:- 12-6-2019 - Shri V. Durga Rao, Judicial Member And Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Accountant Member For the Appellant : Shri T.V.U.B.S.Kishore Babu, AR For the Respondent : Smt.Suman Malik, DR ORDER PER SHRI D.S.SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], Visakhapatnam vide ITA No.17/10-11/DCIT, Cir-3(1)/VSP/12-13 dated 28.09.2012 for the A.Y.2004-05. 2. During the appeal hearing, the Ld.AR filed the following additional grounds and submitted that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e additional ground No.1 which is a pure legal issue. The assessee filed the return of income declaring total income of ₹ 10,27,147/- and the assessment was completed u/s 143(3) on total income of ₹ 38,63,030/-. Subsequently, the AO levied penalty of ₹ 18,00,000/- for concealment of income vide order dated 29.03.2010. During the appeal hearing, the Ld.AR raised the additional grounds stating that the notice issued u/s 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 is ambiguous and defective. The AO did not specify in the notice for which act of offence, the penalty was proposed to be levied whether it is for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars? Therefore, argued that the order passed u/s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... posing the penalty is unsustainable. This view is upheld by this Tribunal in the case of Shri Meka Kasi Visweswarudu, vide I.T.A. No.383/Viz/2018 dated 16.11.2018 following the decision of Hon ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Baisetty Revathi [2017] 398 ITR 88 (Andhra Pradesh and Telangana). For the sake of clarity and convenience, we extract the relevant part of the order of Hon ble High Court which reads as under : 10. A copy of the proforma notice under section 271 read with section 274 of the Act of 1961 addressed to the assessee on March 22, 2013 is produced. Perusal thereof reflects that the irrelevant contents therein, which had no application to the assessee, were struck out leaving ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gs and should have a full opportunity to meet the case of the Revenue so as to show that the conditions stipulated in section 271(1)(c) do not exist and that he is not liable to pay the penalty. It was further held that the practice of the Revenue in sending a printed form where all the grounds mentioned in section 271 are mentioned would not satisfy the requirement of law when the consequence of the assessee not rebutting the initial presumption is serious in nature and he has to pay a penalty ranging from 100 per cent. to 300 per cent of the tax liability. As the provisions of section 271(1)(c) have to be strictly construed, the Bench mandated that the notice issued should set out the grounds which the assessee has to meet specifically, o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly adverts to a case of failure of an assessee to substantiate the explanation offered whereby the amount added or disallowed while computing the total income of such person for the purposes of the penalty provision shall be deemed to represent the income in respect of which particulars had been concealed. The Supreme Court observed that the statutory provision included the Explanation and once the assessee was put on notice, no express invocation of the Explanation is necessary. 14. This judgment has no application to the case on hand as what we are concerned with presently is whether the assessee is required to be put on notice as to whether she is to be penalised for concealment of particulars of income or for furn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... atisfaction in a particular manner while imposing the penalty or reduce it to writing. That is not the controversy in the case on hand. 17. On principle, when penalty proceedings are sought to be initiated by the Revenue under section 271(1)(c) of the Act of 1961, the specific ground which forms the foundation therefore has to be spelt out in clear terms. Otherwise, an assessee would not have proper opportunity to put forth his defence. When the proceedings are penal in nature, resulting in imposition of penalty ranging from 100 per cent. to 300 per cent. of the tax liability, the charge must be unequivocal and unambiguous. When the charge is either concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
