2016 (10) TMI 525 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty under section 271(1)(c) - validity of notice - Concealment of income - Held that - Respectfully following the decision of the Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory (2013 (7) TMI 620 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT), we hold that the notice issued u/s. 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 8/3/2013 for assessment year 2010-11 for initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act in the case on hand is invalid and consequently, the penalty proceedings and levy of penalty thereunder are also invalid. In this view of the matter, the additional ground raised by the assessee is allowed.

Summary

Issues involved:
Levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for assessment year 2010-11.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Background and Assessment Order:
The appellant, engaged in the music business, filed a return of income for the assessment year 2010-11, initially declaring Nil income. Upon scrutiny, the assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act, resulting in the disallowance of an amount, leading to penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c). The Assessing Officer levied a penalty of ?22,17,577 for concealment of income.

2. Appeal to CIT(Appeals):
The appellant appealed to the CIT(Appeals)-13, Mumbai, challenging the penalty. However, the appeal was dismissed, confirming the penalty under section 271(1)(c) for the said assessment year.

3. Grounds of Appeal:
The appellant further appealed against the CIT(Appeals) order, raising grounds challenging the concealment penalty and questioning the validity of the notice issued under section 274 r.w. 271. The additional ground challenged the notice's lack of clarity on the default for initiating penalty proceedings.

4. Admission of Additional Grounds:
The Tribunal admitted the additional grounds raised by the appellant, considering them as legal in nature and crucial to the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c). The notice issued by the Assessing Officer lacked clarity on the default committed by the assessee, as per the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of M/s. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory.

5. Decision and Conclusion:
The Tribunal, following the Karnataka High Court decision, held the notice issued for penalty proceedings as invalid due to lack of clarity on the grounds of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Consequently, the levy of penalty was deemed invalid. As the additional ground addressed the fundamental issue of the penalty's validity, the other grounds challenging the penalty were not adjudicated. The Tribunal allowed the appeal for the assessment year 2010-11, based on the invalidity of the penalty proceedings.

This detailed analysis highlights the procedural and legal aspects leading to the Tribunal's decision to allow the appellant's appeal based on the invalidity of the penalty proceedings.