2023 (1) TMI 1241 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) - defective notice u/s 274 - Non specification of clear charge - HELD THAT - Assessing Officer has used a printed proforma for such notice without specifying the specific charge. Out of the above two options i.e. he should have specifically invited the explanation that he has furnished inaccurate particulars of income. In case this limb of section 271(1)(c) is not applicable then he should have confined his show-cause notice to the extent that assessee has concealed particulars of such income. As decided by Calcutta High Court 2022 (10) TMI 987 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT if ld. AO has not scored of one of the limb from the show-cause notice for visiting the assessee with penalty then such notice will be fatal to the proceedings and penalty could not be levied upon the assessee. Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for A.Y. 2013-14.

Analysis:
The appellant contested the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for A.Y. 2013-14. The appellant's grievance centered on the confirmation of the penalty amounting to Rs.1,85,020 by the ld. CIT(Appeals). The appellant argued that the penalty was unjust as the show-cause notice issued by the ld. Assessing Officer was defective and failed to specify the charges clearly. The appellant relied on precedents from the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court to support their claim, emphasizing that the notice must unambiguously state whether the penalty is for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or concealing such particulars. The appellant provided a copy of the defective show-cause notice dated 29.03.2016 as evidence.

The Tribunal examined the show-cause notice and noted that the ld. Assessing Officer had used a printed proforma that lacked specificity in terms of the charges against the appellant. The notice ambiguously stated, "have concealed the particulars of income or not... furnished inaccurate particulars of such income." The Tribunal concurred with the appellant's argument, highlighting a jurisdictional error in the notice issued by the ld. Assessing Officer. Citing the judgments of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, the Tribunal concluded that the defective notice rendered the penalty proceedings invalid. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and revoked the penalty imposed on the appellant.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found in favor of the appellant, emphasizing the necessity of a clear and specific show-cause notice in penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal's decision was based on the principle that a defective notice, lacking clarity on the charges of inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of such particulars, renders the penalty imposition unsustainable. The appellant's reliance on precedents from the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court played a crucial role in the Tribunal's decision to annul the penalty.