2017 (5) TMI 840 - AT - Income Tax

Levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(C) - non mentioning of inaccurate particulars as given by assessee - proof of concealment and furnishing of inaccurate particulars - Held that - Perusal of the quantum assessment order reveals that the penalty has been initiated without specifying the limb i.e. furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income / concealment of income for which the penalty was being initiated as both the limbs, as per settled legal propositions, are different connotations and carry different meaning. The same also becomes clear from the language of show-cause notice which states that the assessee have concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Even the show-cause notice did not specify the limb / offence for which the penalty was being initiated. Finally, the penalty has been levied for filing of inaccurate particulars of income leading to concealment of income which shows inconsistent thinking on the part of AO. Undisputedly, the AO was required to specify the exact charge for which the assessee was being penalized which he has failed to do so and the same has resulted into taking away assessee s valuable right of contesting the same and thereby violates the principles of natural justice. In the case of CIT Vs. Smt. Kaushalya 1995 (1) TMI 25 - BOMBAY High Court , the Hon ble jurisdictional High Court observed that the notice issued under Section 274 must reveal application of mind by the Assessing Officer and the assessee must be aware of the exact charge on which he had to file his explanation. It was further observed that vagueness and ambiguity in the notice deprives the assessee of reasonable opportunity to contest the same. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
- Appeal against confirmation of levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(C) for Assessment Year 2003-04 & 2006-07.
- Delay in filing appeals and condonation petition.
- Disallowance of abnormal loss and penalty initiation.
- Legal grounds for penalty imposition.
- Jurisdictional requirement for penalty levy.
- Application of mind by Assessing Officer.
- Principles of natural justice in penalty proceedings.
- Similarity in issues for AY 2003-04 and 2006-07.
- Quashing of penalty proceedings on legal grounds.
- Decision to not consider merits due to quashing of penalties.

Detailed Analysis:

1. The appeals challenged the confirmation of penalties under section 271(1)(C) for AY 2003-04 & 2006-07. The delay in filing the appeals was condoned due to the non-availability of directors to sign them. The primary issue was the imposition of penalties related to disallowances of abnormal losses and fictitious business losses.

2. In the case of AY 2003-04, the penalty was confirmed for an amount of ?80,94,048/- due to disallowance of abnormal loss claimed by the assessee. The penalty was upheld based on the grounds of attempting to claim fictitious loss and manipulation in stock valuation. The legal challenge focused on the jurisdictional requirement for penalty imposition.

3. The Assessing Officer (AO) failed to specify the exact charge for penalty initiation, leading to inconsistencies in the penalty order. The show-cause notice did not clearly define the offense for which the penalty was imposed. The penalty was levied for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, but the lack of clarity violated the principles of natural justice.

4. The legal representative argued that the defect in the notice vitiated the penalty proceedings, emphasizing the importance of specifying the exact charge for penalty imposition. Citing relevant case laws, it was contended that the AO's lack of clarity deprived the assessee of the opportunity to contest the penalty effectively.

5. The Tribunal, after considering the arguments and case laws, concluded that the penalty proceedings were vitiated due to the AO's failure to specify the exact charge for penalty imposition. Following the principles of natural justice, the penalty was quashed on legal grounds for AY 2003-04.

6. Similarly, for AY 2006-07, the penalty of ?39,07,742/- was contested on similar legal grounds related to disallowance of certain losses. The Tribunal applied the same reasoning as in AY 2003-04 and quashed the penalty for AY 2006-07 as well.

7. Since the penalties were quashed on legal grounds, the Tribunal did not delve into the merits of the cases any further. Both appeals filed by the assessee were allowed based on the quashing of the penalty proceedings for AY 2003-04 & 2006-07.

8. The Tribunal's decision was pronounced on 17th May 2017, emphasizing the importance of adhering to jurisdictional requirements and principles of natural justice in penalty proceedings.