2017 (3) TMI 1540 - AT - Income Tax

Levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) - defective notice - 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 validity of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act - Notice not specifying the grounds for penalty.

Analysis:
The appeal challenged the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) regarding penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The appellant, an individual deriving income from various sources, filed a return declaring a total income. The assessment was completed determining a higher total income, leading to penalty proceedings initiated against the appellant. The appellant contended that the notice did not specify the grounds for penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, whether for concealment of income particulars or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.

The appellant argued that the penalty order and notice were ambiguous, as the Assessing Officer mentioned both concealment and inaccurate particulars of income. The appellant relied on various decisions to support the argument that penalty proceedings must be specific and initiated for the same grounds as stated in the notice. The appellant emphasized the importance of the assessee having the opportunity to address the specific grounds for penalty and not facing charges different from those initially communicated.

Conversely, the Departmental Representative contended that the assessment order clearly indicated that penalty proceedings were initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The DR highlighted that the notice explicitly mentioned the inaccurate particulars as the charge proposed for the penalty. Therefore, the DR argued that the appellant could not benefit from the judgments cited, as the grounds for penalty were clear from both the assessment order and the notice.

The Tribunal examined the arguments and referred to relevant judgments, including the decision in CIT vs Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory, emphasizing the necessity for coherence between the grounds for initiating penalty proceedings and the final penalty imposed. The Tribunal found that in this case, the assessment order indicated penalty proceedings for inaccurate particulars, while the penalty order mentioned both concealment and inaccurate particulars. Following established precedents, the Tribunal concluded that such discrepancy was unsustainable in law and proceeded to quash the penalty proceedings.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, pronouncing the order on 22nd March 2017. The judgment highlighted the significance of aligning the grounds for initiating and imposing penalties under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act to ensure fairness and adherence to legal principles.