2017 (3) TMI 1538 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) defective notice - unspecified reasons - Held that - Drawing up penalty proceedings for one offence and finding the assessee guilty of another offence or finding him guilty of either one or other cannot be sustained in law. In this case also the assessment order reads that penalty proceedings were initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, whereas the penalty order shows that the assessee was guilty of concealment of particulars of income/furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. According to the binding precedents referred to above, such a course is bad in law and cannot be sustained. We, therefore, proceed to quash the penalty proceedings as they cannot be sustained under law. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to confirmation of penalty by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for Assessment Year 2004-05 & 2005-06.

Analysis:
The appeals were filed by the assessee challenging the penalty confirmation by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Assessing Officer found that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income during the assessment proceedings under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Subsequently, a penalty of ?49,000 was imposed. The assessee contended that the penalty suffered from an inherent contradiction as it was imposed for both furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and concealing income, which was argued to be legally incorrect. The assessee relied on various decisions to support this argument.

The Departmental Representative argued that the penalty was proposed only for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, and any subsequent mention of concealment should not affect the penalty order. The Tribunal carefully examined the material on record, including the judgments cited by the assessee. Referring to a Karnataka High Court judgment, the Tribunal emphasized that penalty proceedings should be initiated and imposed based on specific grounds mentioned in Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. It was highlighted that penalty should be imposed only on the grounds for which the assessee was called upon to answer, and any deviation would violate principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal found that in this case, the penalty proceedings were initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, but the penalty order indicated guilt for both concealment and inaccurate particulars. Citing binding precedents, the Tribunal concluded that such discrepancies were legally unsustainable. Therefore, the penalty proceedings were quashed as they did not conform to the legal requirements. Consequently, both appeals of the assessee were allowed, and the penalty was set aside.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision was based on the principle that penalty proceedings must align with the specific grounds mentioned in the initiation of such proceedings. Any deviation from the stated grounds would violate natural justice principles and render the penalty invalid. The judgment emphasized the importance of consistency in penalty imposition based on the grounds communicated to the assessee, as per legal precedents and statutory provisions.