2019 (3) TMI 1756 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271(1) (c) - Defective notice - addition of bogus purchases by estimating the same at 12.5% - HELD THAT - As noticed from the notice issued by the Assessing Officer under section.274 read with section 271(1)(c)(1)(c) of the Act dated 12.3.2015 for initiating penalty proceedings, the Assessing Officer has not striked out the relevant clauses in this section. AO has initiated penalty proceedings for both limbs i.e. for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income as well concealment of particulars of income as is evident from the assessment order. It means that the assessing officer is not sure about the charge on which penalty is to be levied. Hence, respectfully following the decision of Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of Shri Samson Perinchery 2017 (1) TMI 1292 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT we delete the penalty - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Jurisdictional issue regarding validity of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c)
- Merits issue related to the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) for alleged bogus purchases

Jurisdictional Issue - Validity of Penalty Proceedings under Section 271(1)(c):
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai involved a jurisdictional issue concerning the validity of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appellant contested the penalty imposed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for alleged bogus purchases. The appellant argued that the notice received did not specify the grounds for the penalty and that the penalty proceedings were flawed from the initiation stage. The appellant contended that the penalty notice did not clarify whether it was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The appellant relied on the case law and emphasized that the penalty proceedings suffered from legal infirmity due to the lack of clarity on the charge for which the penalty was imposed.

Merits Issue - Levy of Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for Alleged Bogus Purchases:
The core issue in the appeal was the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) for alleged bogus purchases. The Assessing Officer had initiated penalty proceedings for both furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and concealment of income. The penalty order specifically mentioned that the appellant failed to prove the genuineness of certain purchases, leading to concealment of income. The appellant challenged the penalty order, arguing that the Assessing Officer did not clearly specify the grounds for the penalty in the notice issued. The appellant's counsel referred to statutory notices and case law to support the argument that the penalty proceedings were flawed due to the lack of clarity in specifying the charge for which the penalty was imposed. The Appellate Tribunal, after considering the arguments and the facts of the case, concluded that the penalty proceedings were initiated without a clear indication of the charge, thereby following the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court and deleting the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer.

In summary, the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Mumbai addressed the jurisdictional issue regarding the validity of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) and the merits issue related to the levy of penalty for alleged bogus purchases. The Tribunal found that the penalty proceedings lacked clarity on the charge for which the penalty was imposed, following the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court and consequently allowed the appeal of the assessee by deleting the penalty.