2017 (11) TMI 1759 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - non specification of charge - defective notice - Held that - There is no concealment in the present case. The Assessee has also filed all the details during the regular assessment proceedings. From the notice dated 28.12.2011 produced by the Ld. AR during the hearing, it can be seen that the Assessing Officer was not sure under which provisions of Section 271 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the assessee is liable for penalty. The issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in case of M/s SSA Emerald Meadows. 2016 (8) TMI 1145 - SUPREME COURT - decided in favour of assessee

Summary

Issues:
1. Imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) without assuming jurisdiction.
2. Confirmation of penalty under section 271(1)(c) regarding additions/disallowances.
3. Lack of specificity in charge for penalty imposition by the Assessing Officer.

Analysis:
1. The appellant filed an appeal against the order passed by CIT(A)-3, Gurgaon, imposing a penalty of ?41,125 under section 271(1)(c) without assuming jurisdiction. The CIT(A) confirmed the penalty regarding additions/disallowances. The appellant contended that the Assessing Officer did not specify the charge for penalty imposition. The Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in the case of CIT Vs. M/s SSA' Emerald Meadows was cited, emphasizing the need for clarity in specifying the grounds for penalty under section 271(1)(c). The Tribunal noted that there was no concealment in the case, and the appellant had provided all details during the assessment proceedings. The issue was found to be covered by legal precedents, leading to the allowance of the appeal.

2. The appellant's return of income was initially declared at ?27,15,360, later assessed at ?38,48,450 with certain additions made by the Assessing Officer. The penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) were initiated based on these additions, leading to the imposition of a penalty of ?41,125. Despite the CIT(A) upholding the penalty, the Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer's failure to specify the grounds for penalty imposition rendered the penalty invalid. The Tribunal referred to relevant legal judgments to support its decision, ultimately allowing the appellant's appeal against the penalty.

3. The Assessing Officer's lack of specificity in mentioning the charge for imposing the penalty under section 271(1)(c) was a crucial issue in this case. The appellant argued that the penalty notice did not clearly state the basis for the penalty, which was essential for a valid penalty imposition. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant's contention, citing legal precedents that emphasized the importance of clearly specifying the grounds for penalty under the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal's decision was influenced by the Hon'ble Supreme Court's ruling in the case of M/s SSA' Emerald Meadows, highlighting the necessity of explicitly stating the nature of the penalty charge. As a result, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, considering the lack of clarity in the penalty imposition process by the Assessing Officer.