2016 (4) TMI 950 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s.271(1)(c) - Held that - Since it is not clear from the notice u/s.274 the reasons for levying of penalty as to whether it is for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, therefore, the notice itself is bad in law and invalid. Therefore, the penalty order passed subsequently on the basis of such invalid notice also has to be held as bad in law. We accordingly cancel the penalty levied by the AO. - Decided in favour of assessee

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Levying and confirming penalty of ?23,77,742/-
2. Disregarding the explanation submitted by the assessee for non-levy of penalty.
3. Validity of the penalty notice due to lack of clear satisfaction by the AO regarding the reason for penalty (concealment of income or submission of inaccurate particulars).

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Levying and confirming penalty of ?23,77,742/-
The assessee contested the penalty levied by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A). The AO concluded that the amount of ?70,64,000/- represented unexplained investment by the assessee, which was added to the total income. The penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act were initiated, and a penalty of ?23,77,742/- was levied for the tax sought to be evaded. The CIT(A) upheld this penalty. The Tribunal had previously upheld the quantum addition, affirming the AO's and CIT(A)'s decisions.

Issue 2: Disregarding the explanation submitted by the assessee for non-levy of penalty
The assessee argued that the AO did not properly consider their explanation regarding the notings on the seized document. The AO maintained that the payments reflected in the document were not recorded in the books of account, thus treating the amount as unexplained investment. The CIT(A) and the Tribunal upheld this view, leading to the penalty imposition.

Issue 3: Validity of the penalty notice due to lack of clear satisfaction by the AO
The assessee raised an additional ground contesting the validity of the penalty notice, arguing that the AO did not clearly specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal considered this additional ground, referencing the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory, which held that a penalty notice must clearly state the grounds for penalty to be valid. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument, noting that the AO's notice and assessment order were ambiguous regarding the specific reason for the penalty. The Tribunal concluded that the notice was invalid, rendering the subsequent penalty order unsustainable.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, canceling the penalty levied by the AO due to the invalidity of the penalty notice. The Tribunal did not adjudicate on the merits of the case, as the assessee succeeded on the technical ground of the invalid notice. The order was pronounced in the open court on 18-03-2016.