2019 (4) TMI 1992 - HC - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Defective notice u/s 274 - non specification of single charge - HELD THAT - Taking into consideration the evidence on record this Court finds there is no specific order whether it was concealment of inaccurate particulars in view of the decisions in RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS PVT. LTD. 2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT and MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY 2013 (7) TMI 620 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT the issue is required to be answered against the judgment and order of the Tribunal whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the Appeal imposing penalty.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to Tribunal's order imposing penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 based on the nature of the notice issued - concealment of income or inaccurate income.

Analysis:

The High Court heard arguments from both the appellant-assessee and the respondent regarding the challenge to the Tribunal's judgment imposing a penalty. The appellant's counsel contended that the Assessing Officer initiated proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 based on a hand-written recording in the assessment order. The counsel pointed out that the notice issued was in printed form and did not specify whether it pertained to concealment of income or inaccurate particulars. The appellant relied on a decision of the Karnataka High Court and the Supreme Court's ruling in CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts P.Ltd. to support their argument.

However, the respondent disputed this claim and cited two Supreme Court decisions where SLPs were dismissed - Sundaram Finance Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax and Jivanlal and Sons v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax. The High Court examined the evidence on record and noted the lack of a specific order regarding concealment or inaccurate particulars. Considering the precedents cited, including the Supreme Court's decisions, the Court concluded that the issue needed to be resolved against the appellant. Consequently, the High Court set aside the Tribunal's judgment imposing the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

In summary, the High Court's judgment focused on the nature of the notice issued by the Assessing Officer and the lack of clarity regarding whether it pertained to concealment of income or inaccurate particulars. The Court considered arguments from both parties, referenced relevant legal precedents, and ultimately decided in favor of setting aside the Tribunal's order imposing the penalty. The analysis highlighted the importance of specific orders and legal clarity in such matters, drawing on previous court decisions to support the final ruling.