2019 (2) TMI 1653 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) - defective notice - non-striking off the inappropriate words in the notice - HELD THAT - A perusal of the notice issued u/s 274 read with section 271 shows that the AO has not struck off the inappropriate words in the notice. While imposing the penalty, the AO did not mention under which limb the penalty has been imposed. It is also observed from the penalty order that the AO while levying penalty has also referred to the orders of his predecessor for assessment years 2006-07, 2002-03 and 2003-04. Tribunal in assessee s own case for preceding years 2017 (9) TMI 102 - ITAT DELHI respectfully following the same, we cancel the penalty so levied by the AO and upheld by the CIT(A) due to non-striking off the inappropriate words in the notice. The additional grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed. Since, the assessee succeeds on the additional grounds, the grounds on merit are not being adjudicated being academic in nature. - Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act.
2. Justification of penalty on excessive lease rentals, personal expenses, and capital nature of expenses.
3. Legality of penalty initiation without specific charge.
4. Admissibility of additional grounds raised by the assessee.
5. Merits of the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer.

Issue 1: Validity of penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act.
The appeal challenged the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. The Assessing Officer had initiated penalty proceedings based on three additions made during the assessment, totaling &8377; 13,35,880. The CIT(A) confirmed the penalty, leading to the appeal before the Tribunal. The primary argument was that the penalty was unjustified, and the penalty notice did not specify under which limb of the provisions the penalty was imposed.

Issue 2: Justification of penalty on excessive lease rentals, personal expenses, and capital nature of expenses.
The Assessing Officer levied the penalty based on additions related to excess lease rent for MD, disallowance of personal expenses, and addition on account of capital nature of expenses. The assessee contended that these additions were not sufficient grounds for imposing the penalty under section 271(1)(c). The Tribunal considered the arguments regarding the lease agreement and the alleged personal and capital expenses, analyzing the justification for the penalty on these grounds.

Issue 3: Legality of penalty initiation without specific charge.
The assessee raised additional grounds challenging the legality and jurisdiction of the penalty initiation under section 271(1)(c) without specific charges. The Tribunal admitted these additional grounds, emphasizing that they were purely legal in nature and did not require further investigation. The argument centered around the adequacy of the penalty notice and the lack of clarity regarding the basis for imposing the penalty.

Issue 4: Admissibility of additional grounds raised by the assessee.
The assessee filed additional grounds questioning the legality and jurisdiction of the penalty notice and initiation. The Tribunal admitted these grounds, citing legal precedents and the absence of the requirement for fresh facts investigation. The admissibility of these additional grounds was crucial in addressing the procedural aspects of the penalty imposition.

Issue 5: Merits of the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal analyzed the merits of the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer, considering the various additions and disallowances made during the assessment. The arguments revolved around the justification for the penalty based on the nature of expenses and the adequacy of the penalty notice. Legal precedents and the Tribunal's previous decisions in similar cases were crucial in determining the validity of the penalty.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, canceling the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer and upheld by the CIT(A) due to procedural irregularities in the penalty notice. The decision was based on the non-specificity of the penalty initiation and the Tribunal's previous rulings in similar cases. The additional grounds raised by the assessee were admitted and considered in the decision-making process, leading to the cancellation of the penalty.