2019 (2) TMI 1830 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - absence of any specific mention in the show-cause notice - Defective notice - HELD THAT - As relying on the decision of CIT Another vs.- Manjunatha Cotton Ginning Factory 2013 (7) TMI 620 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT is squarely applicable in the present case and respectfully following the same, we hold that the show-cause notice issued by the Assessing Officer under section 274 for the year under consideration not being in accordance with law, the penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer in pursuance thereof is liable to be cancelled being invalid. We accordingly cancel the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) and confirmed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) and allow the appeal of the assessee.

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the penalty order under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Specificity of the show-cause notice under section 274 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Penalty Order under Section 271(1)(c):
The case involves an appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], which upheld a penalty of ?5,15,155 imposed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee had filed a return declaring an income of ?92,85,930, but the AO determined the total income to be ?1,02,85,930 after disallowing a deduction claim of ?10,00,000 under section 80G for donations. The AO initiated penalty proceedings for the incorrect deduction claim and imposed a penalty after finding the assessee's explanation unsatisfactory. The CIT(A) confirmed this penalty, leading the assessee to appeal before the Tribunal.

2. Specificity of the Show-Cause Notice under Section 274:
The primary contention raised by the assessee was the validity of the penalty order due to the lack of specificity in the show-cause notice issued under section 274. The assessee argued that the notice did not clarify whether the penalty was for "furnishing inaccurate particulars of income" or "concealing particulars of income." The Tribunal's attention was drawn to the fact that the AO did not strike off the irrelevant portion in the printed form of the notice, making it ambiguous.

The Tribunal referred to a similar issue addressed in the case of Suvaprasanna Bhattacharya vs. ACIT, where the penalty order was deemed invalid due to the same ambiguity in the show-cause notice. This decision relied heavily on the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court's ruling in CIT & Another vs. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory, which emphasized that a notice under section 274 must specifically state the grounds for imposing a penalty to satisfy the principles of natural justice.

The Karnataka High Court had laid down several principles, including:
- The necessity for the notice to clearly state whether the penalty is for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars.
- The invalidity of a penalty order if the notice is vague or if the penalty is imposed on grounds other than those specified in the notice.
- The importance of the AO's satisfaction regarding the grounds for penalty being discernible from the assessment order.

The Tribunal concluded that the show-cause notice in the present case was defective as it did not specify the grounds for the penalty, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the penalty order was deemed invalid.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal held that the penalty order under section 271(1)(c) could not be sustained due to the defective show-cause notice. Following the precedent set by the Karnataka High Court and the Tribunal's earlier decision in Suvaprasanna Bhattacharya's case, the penalty imposed by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was canceled. The appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the penalty order was quashed.

Result:
The appeal of the assessee is allowed, and the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) is canceled. The order was pronounced in the open Court on February 08, 2019.

← Previous Next →