SRINIVAS SASIDHAR CHAGANTY,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-17(2), HYDERABAD

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH “B-SMC”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 1908/Hyd/2017 A.Y: 2007-08 Srinivas Sasidhar vs. The Income Tax Officer Chaganty, Hyderabad. Ward - 17(2), Hyderabad. PAN- ABBPC 4713E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee by : Shri D.V. Anjaneyulu Revenue by : Shri K. Gopala Krishna Date of hearing : 10-05-2018 Date of pronouncement : 10-05-2018

ORDER This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order the Ld. CIT(A) -5, Hyderabad dated 27/10/2017 passed u/s 250 of the IT Act, 1961 (the Act), wherein the order passed by the Assessing Officer (A.O) u/s 271(1)(c) of the ‘Act’ has been confirmed. 2. Before me, the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer initiated the penalty proceedings by issue of a notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) on 28.09.2016. He submitted that while issuing the said notice, the Assessing Officer did not mention whether the notice is issued for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, the notice is not validly

2 ITA No. 1908/Hyd/2017 Srinivas Sasidhar Chaganty, Hyd. issued. Consequently, the order passed u/s 271(1)(c) also is not valid. 2.1 Further, ld. AR submitted that when the said fact was brought to the notice of the CIT(A) in the grounds of appeal, the CIT(A) ignored the same and confirmed the assessment order. 3. I have heard the rival contentions. The assessee has filed the copy of the notice dated 28/09/2016 issued u/s 274 of the Act r.w.s 271(1)(c) for the impugned assessment year which is available at page 27 of the paper book. The third para of the notice, reads as under: “Have concealed the particulars of your income furnished, inaccurate particulars of such income” Even the first part of the notice which refers to penalty for non-filing of return of income is also not struck off. 3.1 Thus, it is clear that the notice did not specify the limb of Sec. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, under which penalty proceedings have been initiated. 3.2 I find that the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs M/s SSA’s Emerald Meadows, ITA No. 380 of 2015 judgment dated 23.11.2015 had at para 3 and 4 held as follows: “3. The Tribunal has allowed the appeal filed by the assessee holding the notice issued by the A.O u/s 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act to be bad in law as it did not specify which limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty proceedings had been initiated i.e.,