2021 (9) TMI 1294 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Defective notice u/s 274 - assessee argued for not recording his clear satisfaction and without mentioning any specific charge against the assessee in the notice issued for imposition of penalty - HELD THAT - It is now very well settled by Hon ble Apex Court in the matter of CIT vs. SSA s Emerald Meadows 2016 (8) TMI 1145 - SC ORDER wherein it is held that in such cases notice issued for assuming jurisdiction u/s. 271(1)(c) should be unambiguous - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against penalty orders for assessment years 2008-09 to 2011-12
- Grounds of appeal challenging penalty imposition under sec. 271(1)(c) of IT Act 1961
- Additional legal ground questioning the validity of penalty notice under sec. 274
- Search & seizure operation under sec. 132 leading to assessment u/s. 153A
- Reduction of additions in quantum appeal by CIT(A)
- Initiation of penalty proceedings and imposition of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c)
- Legal challenge regarding ambiguity in penalty notice
- Admissibility of additional legal ground raised during appeal
- Comparison with a similar case leading to quashing of penalty proceedings
- Disposal of connected appeals for assessment years 2009-10 to 2011-12

Analysis:
The appellate tribunal heard appeals against penalty orders for assessment years 2008-09 to 2011-12, where the appellant contested the penalty imposition under sec. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act 1961. The appellant raised grounds challenging the penalty upheld by the CIT(A), citing errors and lack of consideration of relevant facts. An additional legal ground was introduced questioning the validity of the penalty notice under sec. 274, arguing its defectiveness. The case stemmed from a search & seizure operation under sec. 132, leading to assessment u/s. 153A, where the appellant declared additional income before the Settlement Commission. The CIT(A) reduced certain additions but confirmed others, leading to the initiation of penalty proceedings and the imposition of penalties under sec. 271(1)(c).

During the appeal process, a legal challenge was raised regarding the ambiguity in the penalty notice, with the appellant arguing that the penalty proceedings were initiated without clear satisfaction or specific charges mentioned in the notice. The tribunal considered the admissibility of an additional legal ground raised during the appeal, allowing the appellant to challenge the penalty imposition based on recent legal precedents. A similar case was referenced where penalty proceedings were quashed due to the ambiguity in the penalty notice, leading to the deletion of penalties. The tribunal, following the precedent, directed the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty against the appellant, ultimately allowing the appeal filed by the assessee.

In connected appeals for assessment years 2009-10 to 2011-12, similar grounds were raised as in the main appeal, and the tribunal applied the findings from the main case to these connected matters. Consequently, all appeals filed by the assessee were allowed, and the penalties were quashed. The order was pronounced in open court on 2nd September 2021, bringing a favorable resolution to the appellant's legal challenges against the penalties imposed.