2016 (5) TMI 1023 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Held that - It is imperative for the AO to show in the notice the default of assessee. Mere mentioning of the default in the assessment order may not be sufficient. Notice issued to the assessee does not specify the default of the assessee. In our opinion, notice u/s.274 r.w.s.271 of the Act, issued for the impugned assessment year was invalid. Exconsequenti the penalty order is set aside. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of the notice issued for initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Bangalore involved the appeal against the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee challenged the penalty imposed for the impugned assessment year, citing a defect in the notice initiating the penalty proceedings. The assessee argued that the notice was vague and did not specify whether there was concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The Tribunal examined the notice issued to the assessee and referred to the case law to determine the validity of the notice. The Tribunal highlighted that the notice must specify the grounds for penalty, either concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, and the Assessing Officer (AO) must clearly indicate which condition is fulfilled. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of the notice being specific to allow the assessee to contest the penalty proceedings effectively.

Furthermore, the Tribunal relied on a decision by the jurisdictional High Court, which emphasized that the AO must specify the grounds for penalty in the notice to provide the assessee with a fair opportunity to defend against the penalty imposition. The Tribunal concluded that the notice issued in the present case was invalid as it did not specify the default of the assessee, rendering the penalty order unsustainable. The Tribunal held that the jurisdiction to levy the penalty is only validly invoked through a valid notice, and any procedural irregularity in the notice cannot be considered a mere defect but renders the penalty proceedings invalid. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, setting aside the penalty order based on the invalid notice issued for initiating the penalty proceedings.

In summary, the judgment focused on the necessity of a valid and specific notice for initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, ensuring that the grounds for penalty, either concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, are clearly specified to afford the assessee a fair opportunity to contest the penalty imposition.