2017 (3) TMI 1539 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) - legality and correctness of the notice issued in this regard u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) - 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 penalty order under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed challenging the penalty order under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The main issue revolved around the legality and correctness of the notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The appellant contested the penalty, citing various decisions, including those of the Jurisdictional High Court. On the other hand, the respondent argued that the Assessing Officer had initiated proceedings based on furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, as indicated in the assessment order and the notice. The respondent contended that the penalty was justified as both concealment and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income fell under the same category. The appellant relied on the judgment in the case of CIT vs Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory, emphasizing that penalty proceedings must be based on the same grounds as the initiation.

The Tribunal carefully examined the arguments and the precedents cited by both parties. It referenced the judgment of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory, emphasizing that penalty proceedings must align with the grounds on which the proceedings were initiated. The Tribunal noted that in this case, the initiation of penalty proceedings for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income did not correspond with the penalty order, which found the assessee guilty of both concealment and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Citing the binding precedents, the Tribunal concluded that such discrepancies were unsustainable in law. Consequently, the Tribunal quashed the penalty proceedings, ruling in favor of the appellant.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, highlighting the inconsistency between the initiation of penalty proceedings and the grounds on which the penalty was imposed. The judgment emphasized the importance of aligning the basis of penalty proceedings with the actual grounds for penalty imposition, as established by legal precedents and principles of natural justice.