2018 (2) TMI 1992 - HC - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Whether the entire proceedings for penalty u/s 271(1)(c) are rendered without jurisdiction as it has been commenced,confirmed and upheld on composite ground of concealment of income / furnishing of inaccurate particulars , without particularizing the nature of breach evidencing non-application of mind? - Revenue objects to question no.(ii) being admitted, as he states that this issue was not urged before the Tribunal - HELD THAT - We are of the view that this is an issue of jurisdiction. Therefore, it could be raised before us as it goes to the root of the dispute. Issue of jurisdiction can be urged at any time i.e. even before the appeal Court for the first time, particularly when it requires no investigation into facts. Thus, we have admitted question no.(ii) for consideration. Registry is directed to communicate a copy of this order to the Tribunal.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Justification of penalty imposition under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act regarding disclosed gifts in the original return of income.
2. Validity of penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) without specifying the nature of breach leading to nonapplication of mind.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Justification of Penalty Imposition
The High Court admitted the appeal concerning the Assessment Year 2002-03 based on reframed substantial questions of law. The first question raised was whether the Tribunal was correct in upholding the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act in relation to disclosed gifts in the original income return. The appellant challenged the imposition of the penalty, emphasizing that the gifts in question were clearly disclosed in the initial return of income. This issue focuses on the interpretation and application of Section 271(1)(c) in the context of disclosed gifts, highlighting the need for a thorough review of the facts and circumstances surrounding the penalty imposition.

Issue 2: Validity of Penalty Proceedings
The second question of law revolved around the validity of penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) without specifying the nature of the breach leading to a lack of application of mind. The respondent's counsel objected to this question, arguing that it was not raised before the Tribunal. However, the High Court considered this issue crucial as it pertained to jurisdiction, which can be raised at any stage, even before the appeal court, without the need for factual investigation. By admitting this question for consideration, the Court highlighted the significance of addressing issues related to jurisdiction and the necessity of clearly identifying the nature of the breach in penalty proceedings to ensure the proper application of the law.

In conclusion, the judgment by the Bombay High Court delves into the complexities of penalty imposition under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, focusing on the disclosure of gifts in the original income return and the essential requirement of specifying the nature of the breach in penalty proceedings to uphold jurisdiction and ensure the application of legal principles. The decision underscores the importance of a detailed examination of facts and legal provisions to determine the validity and justifiability of penalties in tax matters.