TMI Blog2019 (10) TMI 76X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ibunal in the case of Konchada Sreeram [ 2017 (11) TMI 1164 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM] Therefore, respectfully following above referred to judicial precedents, we hold that the notice issued under section 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274, dated 04/03/2014 is invalid - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 239/VIZ/2019, C.O.No. 75/VIZ/2019 (Arising out of ITA No. 239/VIZ/2019) - - - Dated:- 27-9-2019 - Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon ble Judicial Member And Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon ble Accountant Member For the Assessee : Shri G.V.N. Hari Advocate. For the Department : Smt. Suman Malik Sr.DR ORDER PER V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER This appeal by the R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e has submitted that the notice dated 04/03/2014 issued by the Assessing Officer is not clear whether notice issued under section 271(1)(c) is for concealment of income or furnished inaccurate particulars. Therefore, the notice issued by the Assessing Officer is not a valid notice in the light of the latest judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. SSA s Emerald Meadows [(2016) 73 taxman.com 248 (SC)] and also the Hon'ble High Court of Telangana A.P. in I.T.T.A. No. 684/2016 in Pr.CIT Vs. Smt. Baisetty Revathi, dated 13/07/2017. 7. On the other hand, learned Departmental Representative has submitted that at the time of issuance of notice, the Assessing Officer is not sure about ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 06/10/2017 has considered the validity of notice by following the above referred to judgments and held that notice issued by the Assessing Officer is not a valid notice and accordingly quashed. For the sake of convenience, the relevant portion of the order is extracted as under:- 6. We have heard both the parties and perused the material placed on record. In this case, the assessee has not filed the return of income. The department has conducted the survey u/s 133A and completed the assessment u/s 143(3) on total income of ₹ 15,43,041/- and initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c). The fact is that long term capital gains for sale of the property have come to the notice of the assessing office ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o not exist and that he is not liable to pay the penalty. The Hon ble High Court of Karnataka in the case law cited held that the practice of the revenue in sending the printed form where all the grounds mentioned in 271(1)(c) 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 has to pay the penalty ranging from 100% to 300% of the tax liability. As the provisions of section 271(1)(c) have to be strictly construed, the Hon ble High court of Karnataka mandated that the notice issued should be set out the grounds which the assessee has to meet specifically, otherwise the principles of natural justice would be offended as the show cause noti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e. When the proceedings are penal in nature resulting in imposition of penalty ranging from 100% to 300% of the tax liability, the charge must be unequivocal and unambiguous. When the charge is either concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars thereof, the revenue must specify as to which one of the two is sought to be pressed into service and cannot be permitted to club both by interjecting an 'or' between the two, as in the present case. This ambiguity in the show-cause notice is further compounded presently by the confused finding of the Assessing Officer that he was satisfied that the assessee was guilty of both. We are therefore of the opinion that the order under appeal does ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
