DR. BALABHADRA SUJATHA,,RAJAHMUNDRY vs. THE DY. CIT,, RAJAHMUNDRY

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 248 to 250/VIZ/2017 (Asst. Year : 2002-03 to 2004-05) Smt. Dr. Balabhadra Sujatha, vs. DCIT, Central Circle, D.No. 76-4-25, Rajumazil, Rajahmundry. Gandhi Puram, Rajahmundry. PAN No. ABNPB 6971 H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri G.V.N. Hari – Advocate. Department By : Shri P.S. Murthy – Sr.DR

Date of hearing : 21/02/2018. Date of pronouncement : 23/02/2018.

O R D E R PER V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER

These are the appeals filed by the assessee against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Tirupati, dated 23/02/2017 for the Assessment Year 2002-03 to 2004-05. Since the issue involved in these appeals is common, heard together and disposed of by way of this consolidated order for sake of convenience. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is the 2. Executive Director of M/s. Raju Neuro & Multi Specialities Hospitals (P) Ltd. A search and seizure operation under section 132 of the Act was conducted at the residential and hospital premises of the

2 ITA Nos.248-250/VIZ/2017 (Dr. Balabhadra Sujatha)

assessee on 04/08/2005. Subsequently, a notice under section 153A was issued. In response to the notice, assessee filed the return of income by disclosing an income of Rs. 2,16,118/-, which was the same as declared originally by the assessee. The assessment was completed by determining the total income of Rs.4,43,868/-, which includes income from medical shop and low withdrawals for domestic expenses. Accordingly, penalty proceedings were initiated under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. On appeal, ld. CIT(A) confirmed the penalty order passed by 3. the Assessing Officer. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Learned counsel for the assessee has submitted that the notice 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 Jurisdictional High Court of Telangana & A.P. in I.T.T.A. No. 684/2016 in Pr.CIT Vs. Smt. Baisetty Revathi dated 30/07/2017.

3 ITA Nos.248-250/VIZ/2017 (Dr. Balabhadra Sujatha)

4 ITA Nos.248-250/VIZ/2017 (Dr. Balabhadra Sujatha)

(supra) and also the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SSA’s Emerald Meadows (supra). The coordinate bench of the Visakhapatnam Tribunal in the case of Konchada Sreeram Vs. ITO in ITA No. 388/VIZ/2015, by order dated 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 Rs.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 officer because of the efforts made by the department. Therefore, the AO has 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 some 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 concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars. As per the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court cited, for starting the penalty proceedings, the condition precedent is that the assessing officer must be satisfied that a person has either concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. The person who is accused of the conditions mentioned in Section 271 should be made aware of the grounds on which imposition of penalty is proposed as he has a right to contest such proceedings and should have the 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

5 ITA Nos.248-250/VIZ/2017 (Dr. Balabhadra Sujatha)

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 notice would be vague. On the similar facts, Hon’ble 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/s 271(1)(c) are initiated separately. Neither in the assessment order nor in the penalty notice, the assessing officer has put the assessee on notice for which offence, the penalty u/s 271 was initiated. Therefore, the case is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of cited (supra) wherein the Hon’ble high court held as under: “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, on assesee 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% 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 not brook interference on any ground. We find no question of law, much less a substantial 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

6 ITA Nos.248-250/VIZ/2017 (Dr. Balabhadra Sujatha)

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 ITA Nos.248-250/VIZ/2017 (Dr. Balabhadra Sujatha)

Sd/- sd/- (D.S. SUNDER SINGH) (V. DURGA RAO) Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated : 23r d February, 2018. vr/- Copy to: The Assessee – Smt. Dr. Balabhadra Sujatha, D.No. 76-4- 1. 25, Rajumazil, Gandhi Puram, Rajahmundry. 2. The Revenue – DCIT, Central Circle, Rajahmundry. 3. The Pr.CIT, Rajahmundry. 4. The CIT(A), Tirupati. 5. The D.R., Visakhapatnam. 6. Guard file. By order

(VUKKEM RAMBABU) Sr. Private Secretary, ITAT, Visakhapatnam.