2023 (1) TMI 1373 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Assessee argued AO has failed to point out the exact head/limb under which the penalty is levied and has claimed that it made the penalty invalid - HELD THAT - We find that the above ground has not been raised before any of the authorities below nor any evidence in the said notice, without ticking off the relevant limb, has been filed before us. In these circumstances, in the interest of justice, we remit the issue to the file of the CIT(A). CIT(A) is directed to examine the assessee s claim that the relevant limb in the penalty notice about the charge against the assessee was not specified. After examining the same and the factual veracity thereof, the ld.CIT(A) shall pass an order as per law. Needless to add, the assessee should be granted adequate opportunity of being heard.

Summary

Issues Involved:
The appeal challenges the confirmation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) by the Ld. CIT(A)-2, New Delhi without specifying the exact head/limb, issuing a vague notice u/s 274, and not providing a satisfactory explanation for the penalty.

Issue 1: Invalid Penalty u/s 271(1)(c)

The assessee contested the penalty of Rs. 6,58,098/- u/s 271(1)(c) on the grounds that the Ld. AO failed to pinpoint the exact head/limb for the penalty, rendering it invalid. The appellant argued that the penalty was confirmed without specifying the limb in the penalty order, which was necessary for validity. Additionally, it was contended that the penalty was imposed solely due to differences in creditors, resulting from the closure of operations, which should not be sufficient for penalty imposition. The appellant also highlighted that the additions made in the quantum order were assumptive and lacked a strong legal foundation. The prayer was to delete the penalty and any other relief deemed fit.

Issue 2: Lack of Response and Jurisdiction Challenge

The assessee did not respond to several notices, leading to the adjudication of the penalty issue based on the record and the arguments presented by the ld. DR. The appellant raised a jurisdictional challenge, claiming that the AO did not specify the exact head/limb under which the penalty was levied, thus making it invalid. However, this ground was not raised before any lower authorities, and no evidence supporting this claim was provided. In the interest of justice, the issue was remitted to the ld.CIT(A) for further examination. The ld.CIT(A) was directed to review the claim regarding the unspecified limb in the penalty notice and make a decision accordingly, ensuring the appellant's right to be heard.

In conclusion, the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes only, and the issue of the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was remitted to the ld.CIT(A) for a detailed examination and decision in accordance with the law, emphasizing the importance of providing the appellant with a fair opportunity to present their case.