2016 (11) TMI 1381 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty under Section 271(l)(c) - Held that - We find that in the notice issued u/s 271(1)(c) the charge is not specified. In other words the AO has not specifically stated whether the notice was issued for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. As decided in THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & OTHS. Versus M/s MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY & OTHS. 2013 (7) TMI 620 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT the findings recorded in the assessment proceedings insofar as concealment of income and furnishing of incorrect particulars would not operate as res judicata in the penalty proceedings. It is open to the assessee to contest the said proceedings on merits. However the validity of the assessment or reassessment in pursuance of which penalty is levied cannot be the subject matter of penalty proceedings. The assessment or reassessment cannot be declared as invalid in the penalty proceedings - Decided in favour of assessee

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) for A.Y 2005-06 due to lack of specification in the notice regarding the charge - Interpretation of penalty provisions - Principles of natural justice - Quashing of penalty.

Detailed Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) for the assessment year 2005-06, challenging the confirmation of the penalty by the CIT (A). The main contention revolved around the lack of specification in the notice issued u/s 271(1)(c) regarding whether it was for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. It was noted that the charge was not clearly specified in the notice, which is a crucial aspect in penalty proceedings. The judgment referred to a ruling by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory, emphasizing that the conditions stipulated in Section 271(1)(c) must be discernible from the assessment order or orders of the Appellate or Revisional Authority. It was highlighted that even if there is no specific finding regarding the conditions, the facts should be evident from the order, which would constitute concealment due to deeming provisions.

Furthermore, the judgment underscored that penalty imposition is not automatic and requires a clear direction to initiate proceedings. It was emphasized that the explanation offered by the assessee, even if not substantiated but found to be bonafide, could prevent penalty imposition. The direction to initiate penalty proceedings should be unambiguous, and the notice under Section 274 should specify the grounds mentioned in Section 271(1)(c) to ensure the principles of natural justice are upheld. The judgment also stressed that penalty proceedings are distinct from assessment proceedings and that findings in assessment proceedings do not operate as res judicata in penalty proceedings.

Ultimately, the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) was quashed as being bad in law based on the principles and interpretations discussed. The appeal of the assessee was allowed, highlighting the importance of clarity in specifying the grounds for penalty in notices and the adherence to legal provisions and principles throughout the penalty proceedings.

In conclusion, the judgment provided a comprehensive analysis of the legal requirements and principles governing penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c), emphasizing the need for clarity, adherence to procedural fairness, and the distinction between assessment and penalty proceedings.