TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 1034X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7-2019 - Shri V. Durga Rao, Judicial Member And Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Accountant Member For the Appellant : Shri C.Subrahmanyam, AR For the Respondent : Shri P.Srinivasa Murthy, 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)], Rajamahendravaram vide I.T.A.No.10947/2014-15/CIT(A)/RJY dated 20.12.2018 passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short Act ) for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2011-12. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed the return of income declaring total income of & ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... triking the irrelevant column. The Ld.DR further submitted that the said judgement of the Hon ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh was not considered in the recent judgement of Smt.Baisetty Revathi, therefore, argued that mere non striking of the irrelevant column does not render the notice invalid. Hence argued that the notice issued u/s 271(1)(c) even without striking irrelevant column does not render the proceedings invalid. Hence requested to confirm the order of the Ld.CIT(A). 7. On the other hand, the Ld.AR relied on the order of the Tribunal in the case of Konchada Sreeram vide I.T.A. No.388/Viz/2015 dated 06.10.2017 and argued that it is covered case, hence requested to allow the appeal of the assessee. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. 6.1. From the notice issued by the AO, it is observed that the assessing officer had issued the notice for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars. As per the notice, the assessing officer was not sure of which limb of the offence he sought the explanation from the assessee, whether it was for the concealme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 issued u/s 271(1)(c) is valid the penalty order cannot be held to be valid. The assessing officer did not strike off the irrelevant column in the notice and made known the assessee whether the penalty was initiated for the concealment of income or for furnishing the inaccurate particulars. In the assessment order also the AO simply recorded that the penalty proceedings u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ial 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.604 605/Vizag/2014 dated 2.2.2017 held that non-striking of the irrelevant column renders the notice issued u/s 271 as invalid. Respectfully, following the decision of the Hon ble AP High Court cited supra and the decision of this Tribunal cited (supra), we hold that the notice issued u/s 271 is invalid and consequent penalty imposed by the AO is cancelled. 7. In the result, appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
