On Revenue’s appeal before the Tribunal, it was held that the Ld. AO has issued the notice without specifying as to whether the assessee has concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income and therefore the notice is itself bad in law. Relying on the Apex Court’s Judgement in the case of CIT vs. SSA’s Emerald Meadows (2016) 386 ITR (St.) 13 (SC) the Tribunal concluded that there was no infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A). Since the notice initiating penalty was bad in law, consequent penalty proceedings were vitiated and therefore, the penalty was cancelled. (AY. 2011-12)
ACIT v. Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank (2018) 67 ITR 152 (Patna)(Trib.)
S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty -Concealment – Specific charge – Notice did not categorically specify whether penalty was invoked for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars – Levy of penalty is held to be not justified.