2020 (5) TMI 693 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Defective notice u/s 274 - non striking off the irrelevant/ inapplicable portion on the standard format - whether penalty proceedings were to be initiated for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income? - HELD THAT - AO had issued the notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271 (1) (c) of the Act without striking off the irrelevant/ inapplicable portion on the standard format. As pointed out by the Ld. counsel, the AO can initiate penalty proceedings against the assessee once he is satisfied that there is concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income or both - as held in the case of CIT vs. Samson Perinchery 2017 (1) TMI 1292 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT that concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income carry different connotations, therefore, the order imposing penalty has to be made only on ground on which penalty proceedings have been initiated Since the AO has issued the notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271 of the Act in a mechanical manner without striking off the inapplicable portion of the notice printed on standard format, the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is not sustainable in law. Hence, we find merit in the contention of the Ld. counsel - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to validity of penalty order under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 due to unclear notice issued under section 274, mechanical initiation of penalty proceedings, and failure to strike off irrelevant portions.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the penalty order passed by the Ld. CIT (A) for the assessment year 2014-15, where the penalty was levied for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The AO initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act after disallowing certain expenses in the assessment. The Ld. CIT (A) confirmed the penalty, leading to the appeal before the Tribunal.

The assessee challenged the penalty order on various grounds, including the failure to specify whether the penalty was for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income. The Ld. counsel argued that the notice issued by the AO was unclear and mechanical, lacking specificity. Citing the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in a similar case, the counsel contended that such deficiencies render the penalty order invalid.

The Ld. Departmental Representative supported the order of the Ld. CIT (A), arguing that the assessee's participation in the proceedings negated any prejudice caused by the unclear notice. However, the Tribunal observed that the AO's failure to clearly specify the grounds for penalty initiation was a legal flaw. Referring to relevant case laws, including decisions by the Mumbai Tribunal, the Tribunal held that the penalty order was unsustainable due to the mechanical issuance of the notice.

Based on the above analysis, the Tribunal decided in favor of the assessee, setting aside the penalty order under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Tribunal found merit in the contention raised by the Ld. counsel and directed the AO to delete the penalty. As the legal ground was decided in favor of the assessee, the Tribunal did not delve into the merits of the case.

Therefore, the appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2014-2015 was allowed, and the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act was directed to be deleted. The Tribunal's decision was based on the inadequacy of the notice issued by the AO and the legal principles established in relevant judgments.