2016 (11) TMI 533 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) - defective notice - Held that - We find that undisputedly the AO has not identified in the notices as to whether the penalty proceedings are initiated for concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of such income. Therefore, following the aforesaid judgment of Hon ble jurisdictional High Court, we are of the considered view that on account of defective notice issued for initiation of penalty proceedings, the penalty order passed by the AO is not sustainable in the eyes of law. We accordingly set aside the order of the CIT(Appeals) as well as the Assessing Officer and delete the penalty on account of wrong initiation of penalty proceedings. - Decided in favour of assessee

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars.
2. Requirement of specifying grounds for penalty in the notice under section 274.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Validity of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c)
The appeal was filed against the order of CIT(Appeals) challenging the imposition of penalties under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The appellant contended that the penalties were not justified as the conditions for penalty imposition were not met. The appellant argued that the tests laid down by the Karnataka High Court had not been satisfied, and hence, no penalty was exigible. The appellant further highlighted that the absence of specific directions in the assessment order for penalty action rendered the penalties unjustifiable. The appellant emphasized that the notice under section 274 was ambiguous and did not clearly specify the grounds for penalty imposition, making the penalty order unsustainable.

Issue 2: Requirement of specifying grounds for penalty in the notice under section 274
During the proceedings, the appellant challenged the validity of the penalty proceedings on the basis that the notice under section 274 did not specify the grounds for penalty imposition, i.e., whether it was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The appellant relied on relevant judgments and argued that the failure to identify the specific grounds in the notice rendered the penalty order invalid. The Tribunal examined the notice issued under section 274 and found that it did not identify whether the penalty proceedings were initiated for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Citing precedents and legal principles, the Tribunal held that a notice under section 274 must specifically state the grounds for penalty imposition as per section 271(1)(c). The Tribunal emphasized that the failure to specify the grounds in the notice violated the principles of natural justice and rendered the penalty order unsustainable.

In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the penalty order, ruling that the defective notice for initiating penalty proceedings made the penalty unsustainable in the eyes of the law. As a result, the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer and upheld by the CIT(Appeals) was deleted. Since the penalty proceedings were quashed, the Tribunal found no need to address the appeals on their merits, deeming it academic. The appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the penalty was canceled.