Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BANGALORE BENCH C, BANGALORE
Before: SHRI. ABRAHAM P. GEORGE & SHRI. GEORGE GEORGE K
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH 'C', BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI. GEORGE GEORGE K, JUDICIAL MEMBER (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 penalty 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, Bengaluru.
ITA.938/Bang/2016 Page - 2
In addition to the original grounds, assessee has 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 274 rws 271 is not discernable whether the penalty proceedings is initiated for concealment or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars under the facts and circumstances of the case.”
Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that 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 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 also 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 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.