2014 (11) TMI 1225 - HC - Income Tax

Penalty 271(1)(c) - Defective notice - Difference of income declared in return under Section 153A and original return - HELD THAT - As relying on case of Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory and others 2013 (7) TMI 620 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT the defective notice resulted in principles of natural justice being suffered and based on such proceedings, no penalty could be imposed on the assessee. Therefore, the entire proceedings initiated would become without jurisdiction. Consequently, the order passed would become invalid and is liable to be set aside. Therefore, as the notice issued in the instant case initiating penalty proceedings is not in accordance with law, order passed in such proceedings is void - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Levy of penalty on difference of income declared in return under Section 153A and original return.

Analysis:
The appellant challenged the penalty imposed by the Tribunal based on the variance in income declared in the return filed under Section 153A and the original return. The appellant contended that the notice issued for levying the penalty was improper and not in accordance with the law, citing a previous judgment by the Court. The Tribunal's observation regarding the show-cause notice was highlighted, emphasizing that the notice did not specify whether it pertained to concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Court referred to a previous judgment, stressing that penalty proceedings should be initiated based on specific grounds mentioned in the order, and the notice issued should clearly state the grounds for imposing the penalty. The Court emphasized that the assessee must be made aware of the grounds on which the penalty is being imposed to ensure a fair opportunity to contest the proceedings. It was noted that penalty proceedings should be confined to the grounds specified in the notice, and imposing a penalty on different grounds would violate the principles of natural justice.

The Court concluded that the Tribunal's reasoning contradicted the legal principles established by the Court. The defective notice issued for initiating penalty proceedings resulted in a violation of natural justice, rendering any penalty imposed on the assessee invalid. Therefore, the Court held that the entire proceedings initiated based on the defective notice were without jurisdiction, and the order passed was deemed invalid and set aside. The Court ruled in favor of the assessee concerning the notice and against the revenue. As the impugned notice was set aside, the Court did not address other substantial questions of law. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and the assessee was given the option to challenge the order on other grounds if the order was appealed and set aside by the higher court.