9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (4) TMI 513 - AT - Income TaxPenalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Held that - In the present case the Assessing Officer has issued notice u/s. 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act without striking of the clauses which are not relevant. The notice is ambiguous. Further a perusal of penalty order shows that the Assessing Officer has not specified the information concealed by the assessee. Mere mentioning of the phrase that the assessee has concealed income as well as furnished inaccurate particulars of income is not sufficient to comply with the provisions of section 271(1)(c). The Assessing Officer has to subjectively explain as to what information assessee has concealed and/or what inaccurate particulars are filed in the return of income. The Assessing Officer in present case seems was not clear at the time of issuing notice as to whether penalty is to be levied for concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars or both. Thus, in our considered view the notice issue u/s. 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) in the instant case is defective and the proceedings arising therefrom are vitiated, unsustainable and are liable to be annulled. - Decided in favour of assessee
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of development expenses. 2. Levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Disallowance of Development Expenses: The assessee, engaged in construction and land dealings, filed its return of income for the assessment year 2008-09. During scrutiny, the Assessing Officer (AO) observed that the assessee sold two plots but could not substantiate the development expenses claimed. The assessee conceded that they could not support the development expenditure and offered Rs. 58,40,941/- for tax. Consequently, the AO disallowed the expenditure. The assessee appealed against this disallowance to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], who upheld the AO's decision. The assessee then filed a second appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal noted that the addition was based on the assessee's voluntary admission of being unable to support the development expenses. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no merit in the assessee's appeal, and dismissed it. 2. Levy of Penalty under Section 271(1)(c): The AO initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) for the wrongful claim of development expenses, which amounted to concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars. The AO levied a penalty of Rs. 19,85,336/-. The assessee appealed against the penalty to the CIT(A), who confirmed the penalty order. The assessee then appealed to the Tribunal. The assessee argued that the show cause notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) was defective as it did not specify whether the penalty was for furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealing income. The notice was issued on a pre-printed proforma without striking off the irrelevant parts, indicating non-application of mind by the AO. The assessee cited the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory, which held that such notices are bad in law. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee's argument, noting that the notice was ambiguous and did not clearly specify the grounds for the penalty. The Tribunal held that the defective notice vitiated the penalty proceedings, making them unsustainable. The Tribunal annulled the penalty order and allowed the appeal on this ground, making the assessee's other arguments on merits academic. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the appeal concerning the disallowance of development expenses, upholding the CIT(A)'s order. However, it allowed the appeal against the penalty under section 271(1)(c), annulling the penalty order due to the defective show cause notice.
|
