2018 (6) TMI 1676 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) - non mentioning of specific charge - HELD THAT - Specific charge as mandated u/s 271 (1)(c) of the Act. In such facts and circumstance the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Snita Transport Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 2012 (12) TMI 981 - HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT . has held that penalty cannot be imposed without mentioning the specific charge. AO has not mentioned the specific charge in its penalty orders whether it was levied for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, in our considered view, the penalty levied by the AO and confirmed by the learned CIT (A) is not sustainable. Hence, the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 based on concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by the assessee against the appellate order of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) challenging the penalty order passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Year 2012-13.
2. The assessee raised grounds of appeal arguing that the penalty imposed was illegal, unlawful, and against natural justice. The appellant contended that the AO erred in not considering explanations and evidence provided. The appellant also disputed the AO's findings regarding concealment of long-term capital gains.
3. The AO observed discrepancies in the property sale value and stamp duty valuation, resulting in unreported long-term capital gains. The penalty proceedings were initiated based on non-disclosure of capital gains in the income tax return.
4. The assessee argued before the CIT(A) that there was no deliberate intention to conceal income and claimed lack of awareness regarding tax provisions. The CIT(A) partially upheld the penalty, emphasizing the non-disclosure of capital gains in the original return.
5. In the second appeal, the AR argued that the penalty was imposed without specifying the charge of concealment or inaccurate particulars. The DR supported the lower authorities' decision.
6. The Tribunal noted that the penalty was imposed without specifying the charge, contrary to the requirements of section 271(1)(c). Citing relevant case law, the Tribunal held that a clear finding on concealment or inaccurate particulars is necessary for penalty imposition. As the charge was not specified, the penalty was deemed unsustainable, and the appeal was allowed.
7. Due to the technical ground for penalty deletion, the Tribunal refrained from addressing the merits of the appeal raised by the assessee.
8. Consequently, the appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the penalty was deleted based on the lack of specific charge in the penalty order.