2015 (6) TMI 384 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) - additions of unexplained cash credits under Section 68 - Held that - The original notice dt.28.3.2005 issued by the Assessing Officer. A perusal of the notice issued under Section 274 r.w.s. 271 of the Act dt.28.3.2005, reveals that the Assessing Officer has not deleted the inappropriate words and parts of the notice, whereby it is not clear as to the default committed by the assessee; i.e. whether it is the concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is sought to be levied. We find that the Hon ble High Court of Karnataka in its order in the case of M/s. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory 2013 (7) TMI 620 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT has held that such a notice, as has also been issued in the case on hand, is invalid and the consequential penalty proceedings are also not valid. - Decided in favour of assesse.

Summary

Issues:
Levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Year 2002-03.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Background and Assessment Details
The appellant, a company in the transport business, filed its return for Assessment Year 2002-03 declaring NIL income after setting off unabsorbed depreciation. The assessment was completed under Section 143(3) of the Act, resulting in an income determination after adding unexplained cash credits under Section 68. Appeals were made against the assessment orders, leading to the levy of a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) by the Assessing Officer.

Issue 2: Penalty Proceedings Initiation
The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) before the disposal of the appellant's appeals against the assessment orders. The penalty was levied at Rs. 10,21,000, which was later modified and confirmed by the CIT (Appeals) and a co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal. The appellant challenged the validity of the penalty initiation and the satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer.

Issue 3: Grounds of Appeal
The appellant raised multiple grounds challenging the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c). These included opposition to the penalty based on law, equity, and facts, questioning the initiation of proceedings without proper satisfaction, and contesting the penalty amounts imposed for unexplained cash credits. The appellant argued against any concealment or inaccurate particulars of income warranting a penalty.

Issue 4: Additional Grounds and Legal Challenge
During the appeal process, the appellant submitted additional grounds challenging the validity of the notice issued under Section 274 r.w.s 271 of the Act. The Tribunal admitted these additional grounds for consideration, emphasizing the importance of clarity in the notice regarding the grounds for penalty imposition.

Issue 5: Tribunal Decision and Legal Analysis
The Tribunal considered the additional grounds challenging the validity of the penalty notice. Citing a judgment by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, the Tribunal held that the notice issued for penalty proceedings lacked clarity on the grounds for penalty imposition, rendering the proceedings invalid. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the additional grounds, leading to the cancellation of the penalty based on the notice's invalidity.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appellant's appeal for Assessment Year 2002-03, emphasizing the importance of a clear and specific notice for penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The decision highlighted the necessity for proper grounds and clarity in initiating and conducting penalty proceedings to ensure procedural fairness and adherence to legal requirements.