2016 (5) TMI 977 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - defective notice - Held that - In the order of the assessment the AO has not initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c ) of the Act. As rightly pointed out by the ld. Counsel for the assessee even in the assessment proceedings the AO has not made any reference to the provision of section 271(1)(c) of the Act in the show cause notice issued before making the impugned additions in respect of which penalty was imposed. The AO has merely observed that appropriate penal proceedings was proposed to be initiated. Thereafter there has been no actual initiation of penalty proceedings in the order of the assessment. The requirements of levying of penalty u/s 271 (1)(c) of the Act is the satisfaction of the AO in the course of any proceedings under the Act that any person has concealed particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. Such satisfaction can emanate only from initiation of penalty proceedings while concluding the assessment. In the absence of initiation of penalty proceedings in the order of assessment the proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act have to be held illegal and invalid and are liable to be quashed. Also in the show cause notice issued before imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, the AO has not struck off the irrelevant portions namely whether the penalty is sought to be levied for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or for concealing particulars of income. This Tribunal in the case of Suvaprasanna Bhattacharya vs ACIT (2015 (12) TMI 43 - ITAT KOLKATA) has held that imposition of penalty on such defective show cause notice is improper and liable to be cancelled - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act.
2. Validity of the show cause notice issued for penalty proceedings.
3. Requirement of satisfaction by the Assessing Officer (AO) for initiating penalty proceedings.
4. Defective show cause notice and its implications on penalty imposition.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Imposition of Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act:
The appeal concerns the imposition of a penalty on the assessee under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The AO imposed a penalty of ?13,44,986, which was 125% of the tax sought to be evaded, on the grounds that the assessee had deliberately and willfully furnished inaccurate particulars in the return of income. The CIT(A) confirmed the AO's order, leading to the present appeal before the Tribunal.

2. Validity of the Show Cause Notice Issued for Penalty Proceedings:
The Tribunal examined the validity of the show cause notice issued by the AO before imposing the penalty. The assessee's counsel argued that the notice did not specify whether the penalty was for "concealing particulars of income" or "furnishing inaccurate particulars of income." The Tribunal referred to the decision in Suvaprasanna Bhattacharya vs ACIT, where it was held that a show cause notice must clearly state the grounds for penalty imposition. The Tribunal found that the AO's notice was defective as it did not strike off the irrelevant portions, making the initiation of penalty proceedings invalid.

3. Requirement of Satisfaction by the AO for Initiating Penalty Proceedings:
The Tribunal emphasized that the satisfaction of the AO is a prerequisite for initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c). The AO must record this satisfaction in the course of assessment proceedings. In this case, the AO did not initiate penalty proceedings in the assessment order nor made any reference to Section 271(1)(c) in the show cause notice before making the impugned additions. The Tribunal concluded that the absence of such initiation rendered the penalty proceedings illegal and invalid.

4. Defective Show Cause Notice and Its Implications on Penalty Imposition:
The Tribunal relied on the principles laid down by the Karnataka High Court in CIT & Anr. v. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory, which stated that a show cause notice under Section 274 must specifically state whether the penalty is for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal noted that the AO's failure to strike off irrelevant portions in the notice indicated non-application of mind and violated principles of natural justice. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the penalty imposed based on such a defective notice was invalid.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal by the assessee, canceling the penalty orders. It held that the levy of penalty in the present case could not be sustained due to the defective show cause notice and the absence of proper initiation of penalty proceedings by the AO. The appeal was allowed, and the penalty imposed on the assessee was canceled.

Order Pronounced:
The order was pronounced in the Court on 20.05.2016.