2016 (5) TMI 759 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c ) - addition u/s 69 - Held that - CIT(A) in this case has travelled beyond his jurisdiction in levying the penalty u/s 271(1)(c ) of the Act. It is well settled that penalty can be levied by the Ld.CIT(A) only with respect to enhancement of assessment. In this case there is no enhancement of assessment. Moreover when the AO had initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and dropped the same, the Ld.CIT(A) does not have any jurisdiction to reinitiate such proceedings or start a fresh proceedings. Thus on this ground alone the penalty is to be quashed. - Decided in favour of assessee

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is justified.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, engaged in wholesale trading, challenged penalty proceedings initiated under section 271(1)(c) by the Assessing Officer (AO) based on an addition made to the total income. The AO subsequently dropped the penalty proceedings. The Ld.CIT(A) then initiated separate penalty proceedings and imposed a penalty of 300% on the added amount.

2. The Ld.CIT(A) imposed the penalty on the grounds of concealment of income, despite no enhancement in the assessment. The appellant contended that the penalty was unjust as they believed in good faith that the income in question was correctly disclosed. The Ld.CIT(A) failed to specify the charge for penalty in the show cause notice, leading to ambiguity.

3. The Appellate Tribunal observed that the Ld.CIT(A) exceeded jurisdiction in levying the penalty without enhancing the assessment. Referring to legal precedents, the Tribunal emphasized that penalty imposition requires clear grounds and cannot be automatic, especially without establishing concealment or inaccurate particulars beyond doubt.

4. Citing the decision in the case of Shri Hafeez S.Contractor vs. ACIT, the Tribunal held that penalties cannot be imposed if specific charges are not mentioned in the notice. Relying on legal principles and precedents, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, deleting the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act.

5. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, emphasizing the importance of clear charges and legal compliance in penalty proceedings. The judgment highlighted the necessity for a transparent and justified basis for imposing penalties under the Income Tax Act, ensuring fairness and adherence to legal principles.