G. VANITHA,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

Among the very many grounds taken by the assessee, one of the grounds, namely ground no.3(c) assails that the validity of the notice issued by the AO u/s.271(1) r.w.s.274 of the Act. Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that the notice was vague and by virtue of the judgment of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. M/s. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (359 ITR 565), a vague notice would invalidate the levy of penalty.

Ld. DR on the other hand submitted that this ground was not taken by the assessee before the CIT (A).

We have perused the orders and heard the contentions. It might be true that Hon’ble 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 the notice issued u/s.274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Nevertheless we find that such a ground was never raised before the CIT (A). In the fitness of things, we are of the opinion that the issue regarding validity of penalty due to vagueness of the notice issued u/s.274 r.w.s.271 of the Act has to be considered by the CIT (A). We therefore remit this issue to the CIT (A) for consideration in accordance with law.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose.