9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (8) TMI 1606 - AT - Income TaxPenalty u/s 271(1)(c) - defective notice - AO did not strike off and specify the charge/limb for which he is proposing to initiate the penalty proceedings - HELD THAT - We find that Assessing Officer did not strike off and specify the charge/limb for which he is proposing to initiate the penalty proceedings. In the assessment order Assessing Officer stated that proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) are initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars and concealment of income. However, in the penalty order passed it is stated that penalty is levied for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. As relying on MEHERJEE CASSINATH HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED 2017 (5) TMI 904 - ITAT MUMBAI notice issued by the Assessing Officer U/s. 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) of the Act is on account of non-application of mind and therefore the penalty proceedings initiated are bad in law. Thus, we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty levied U/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of penalty proceedings initiated under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. 2. Specificity of the charge in the penalty notice. 3. Application of principles of natural justice. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of Penalty Proceedings Initiated under Section 271(1)(c): The primary issue in the appeal was whether the initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) was valid. The assessee contended that the penalty proceedings were invalid as the Assessing Officer (AO) did not specify the exact charge—whether it was for "concealment of income" or "furnishing inaccurate particulars." The Tribunal noted that the AO did not strike off the irrelevant portion in the penalty notice, leading to ambiguity. The Tribunal referenced previous judgments, including the case of Meherjee Cassinath Holdings v. ACIT and CIT v. Samson Perinchery, which held that such ambiguity violates principles of natural justice as the assessee is not made aware of the specific charge to respond to. Consequently, the Tribunal found the penalty proceedings to be invalid due to non-application of mind by the AO. 2. Specificity of the Charge in the Penalty Notice: The Tribunal observed that the AO's failure to specify the charge in the penalty notice—whether for "furnishing inaccurate particulars" or "concealment of income"—renders the proceedings defective. The AO mentioned both charges in the assessment order but only referred to "furnishing inaccurate particulars" in the penalty order. This inconsistency was deemed a critical flaw. The Tribunal cited the case of Dilip N. Shroff v. JCIT, which emphasized that such ambiguity indicates non-application of mind and violates the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal concluded that the penalty notice's lack of specificity invalidated the proceedings. 3. Application of Principles of Natural Justice: The Tribunal underscored that penalty proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature and must adhere to principles of natural justice. The AO's failure to clearly specify the charge deprived the assessee of a fair opportunity to defend themselves. The Tribunal referenced multiple cases, including CIT v. Samson Perinchery and the decision in Dilip N. Shroff v. JCIT, to support the view that an ambiguous penalty notice violates natural justice principles. The Tribunal held that the AO's actions showed non-compliance with these principles, rendering the penalty proceedings invalid. Conclusion: The Tribunal, following the precedents set by higher courts and previous judgments, held that the penalty proceedings initiated by the AO were invalid due to non-application of mind and lack of specificity in the penalty notice. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the AO to delete the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the Tribunal did not address other arguments as they became academic. Order Pronouncement: The order was pronounced in the open court on 28th August 2019, allowing the appeal of the assessee.
|
