2023 (8) TMI 1373 - HC - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - defective notice u/s 274 - non specification of clear charge/Default - HELD THAT - Revenue does not dispute that none of the penalty notices issued to the respondent/assessee for the aforementioned AYs advert to the specific limb of Section 271(1)(c) which is triggered against him. It is not clear whether the AO intended to levy a penalty on the respondent/assessee for concealment of particulars of his income, or furnishing inaccurate particulars. This issue is covered against the appellant/revenue in a catena of judgments, including the judgment rendered by the coordinate bench in the matter of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-3 v. Ms Minu Bakshi 2022 (7) TMI 1307 - DELHI HIGH COURT - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
The judgment concerns appeals related to Assessment Years AY 2011-12, AY 2008-09, AY 2010-11, and AY 2009-10 challenging the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.

AY 2011-12 (ITA 189/2023):
The penalty notices issued did not specify the limb of Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, triggered against the assessee. The appellant's challenge is dismissed based on precedents like Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-3 v. Ms Minu Bakshi.

AY 2008-09 (ITA 190/2023), AY 2010-11 (ITA 191/2023), AY 2009-10 (ITA 192/2023):
Similar to AY 2011-12, the penalty notices did not specify the limb of Section 271(1)(c) under which the penalty was sought to be levied. The judgment refers to the necessity for the Assessing Officer to clearly indicate the limb of the provision attracted for penalty proceedings, as highlighted in PCIT v. Unitech Reliable Projects Ltd. case. The court emphasizes that the AO must specify the provision/limb under which penalty proceedings are initiated against the assessee to determine the pecuniary burden accurately.

The appeals are not admitted as no substantial question of law arises for consideration, and accordingly, the appeals are closed.