Shri. A.S. Vaidyanathan, Bangalore V. ITO, Bangalore

ITA 938/BANG/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0451 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-04-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 11-04-2016
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 18-07-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SHAM R CHAKRAVARTHY
• Section: 27

Judgement Text

ITA.938/BANG/2016 PAGE - 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH 'C', BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI. GEORGE GEORGE K, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A NO.938/BANG/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09) SHRI. A. S. VAIDYANATHAN, NO.4084, PRESTIGE SOUTHRIDGE, HOSKEREHALLI CROSS, BSK III STAGE, BANGALORE 560 085 .. APPELLANT PAN : AHPPA3615M V. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 5(3), BENGALURU .. RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI. SHAM R. CHAKRAVARTHY, CA REVENUE BY : SHRI. SUNIL KUMAR AGARWALA, JCIT HEARD ON : 11.04.2016 PRONOUNCED ON : 13.04.2016 O R D E R PER ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : ASSESSEE THROUGH THIS APPEAL ASSAILS LEVY OF PENAL TY U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT IN SHORT), FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR, WHICH WAS CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A) II, BENGAL URU. ITA.938/BANG/2016 PAGE - 2 02. IN ADDITION TO THE ORIGINAL GROUNDS, ASSESSEE H AS ALSO TAKEN ONE ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL WHICH READS AS UNDER : THE ORDER OF PENALTY PASSED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C ) OF THE ACT IS BAD IN LAW AS THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 27 4 RWS 271 IS NOT DISCERNABLE WHETHER THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS IS INITIATED FOR CONCEALMENT OR FOR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICU LARS UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 03. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT BY VIRTUE OF THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN TH E CASE OF CIT V. M/S. MANJUNATHA COTTON & GINNING FACTORY (359 ITR 565), A VAGUE NOTICE WOULD INVALIDATE THE LEVY OF PENALTY. 04. LD. DR ON THE OTHER HAND SUBMITTED THAT THIS GR OUND WAS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT (A). 05. WE HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS AND HEARD THE CONTEN TIONS. IT MIGHT BE TRUE THAT HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MANJUNATHA COTTON & GINNING FACTORY (SUPRA) HAD EMPHASISED THE REQUIREMENT OF SPECIFYING THE ALLEGED FAILURE OF THE ASSESSEE IN T HE NOTICE ISSUED U/S.274 READ WITH SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. NEVERTHELE SS WE ALSO FIND THAT SUCH A GROUND WAS NEVER RAISED BEFORE THE CIT (A). IN T HE FITNESS OF THINGS, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ISSUE REGARDING VALIDIT Y OF PENALTY DUE TO VAGUENESS OF THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S.274 R.W.S.271 OF THE ACT HAS TO BE ITA.938/BANG/2016 PAGE - 3 CONSIDERED BY THE CIT (A). WE THEREFORE REMIT THIS ISSUE TO THE CIT (A) FOR CONSIDERATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 06. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS TREATE D AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 13 TH APRIL, 2016. SD/- SD/- (GEORGE GEORGE K) (ABRAHAM P GEOR GE) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUN TANT MEMBER MCN COPY TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE 2. THE ASSESSING OFFICER 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX 4. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A) 5. DR 6. GF, ITAT, BANGALORE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR