2016 (9) TMI 1266 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - whether the assessing officer is entitled to levy penalty on another limb of sec. 271(1)(c) of the Act when the penalty proceedings were initiated on a different limb? - Held that - We notice that an identical issue was considered by the co-ordinate bench in the case of Dharni Developers (2015 (9) TMI 57 - ITAT MUMBAI ), wherein the contention of the assessee was accepted wherein held penalty proceedings initiated on the ground of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income , imposition of penalty on the ground of concealment of income was not justified. Thus the impugned penalty is not sustainable. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to penalty order under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for assessment year 2006-07.
2. Legal issue of whether penalty can be levied on a different limb of section 271(1)(c) than the one the proceedings were initiated on.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Challenge to Penalty Order
The appeal was filed by the assessee against the penalty order of ?1,33,002/- imposed by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2006-07. The order was confirmed by the Ld CIT(A)-41, Mumbai, leading to the appeal before the ITAT Mumbai.

Issue 2: Legal Issue of Penalty Imposition
The legal issue raised was whether the assessing officer can levy a penalty under a different limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act than the one on which the penalty proceedings were initiated. The assessee contended that the penalty can be imposed either for concealment of income particulars or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, and the penalty should be levied under the limb under which the proceedings were initiated. It was argued that while the penalty proceedings were initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, the penalty was imposed for concealment of particulars of income.

Judgment and Decision
The ITAT Mumbai considered the legal issue, even though it was not raised before the lower authorities, based on the availability of facts and materials on record. Referring to relevant case law, including the decision in Dharni Developers Vs. ACIT, the ITAT held that the penalty order cannot be sustained when there is a discrepancy between the limb under which penalty proceedings were initiated and the limb under which the penalty was levied. The ITAT quashed the penalty order on legal grounds, citing precedents and holding that the penalty was not sustainable. Consequently, the ITAT allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, setting aside the orders passed by the tax authorities.

In conclusion, the ITAT Mumbai ruled in favor of the assessee, holding that the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for concealment of income particulars, when the penalty proceedings were initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, was not sustainable. The ITAT's decision was based on legal grounds and consistent with precedents, leading to the allowance of the assessee's appeal and the setting aside of the penalty orders.