2017 (5) TMI 1417 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) - defective notice - Held that - After perusing the notice dated 31.12.2007 issued by the AO to the assessee we are of the view that the AO has initiated the penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income/concealment of income but in the penalty order dated 06.11.2009 he has stated that he is satisfied that the assessee has furnished the inaccurate particulars of income. In our view the penalty in dispute is not sustainable in the eyes of law because the AO has not recorded any clear finding whether the assessee was guilty of concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Secondly the notice u/s. 271(1)(c) has been issued to the assessee levying the penalty for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income/concealment of income whereas the penalty in dispute has been levied by the AO on account of furnishing of inaccurate particulars. Thus we delete the penalty in dispute and decide the issue in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Correctness of order passed by CIT(A) and AO
2. Sustainment of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961
3. Ambiguity in penalty notice and grounds for penalty imposition

Analysis:

Issue 1: Correctness of order passed by CIT(A) and AO
The appeal was against the Order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-IV, New Delhi dated 21.10.2013 pertaining to assessment year 2006-07. The assessee, a property dealer, voluntarily offered additional income during a survey operation, but discrepancies were found between the offered and declared income. The AO made additions to the income, and the CIT(A) confirmed a part of it. The AO then levied a penalty, which was later modified. The Assessee appealed against the penalty order, but the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal, upholding the penalty.

Issue 2: Sustainment of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961
The penalty was imposed under section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Assessee argued that the penalty proceedings should fail due to ambiguity in the penalty notice. The Ld. CIT(A) found that the Assessee had concealed income and furnished inaccurate particulars, justifying the penalty. However, discrepancies were noted in the AO's satisfaction recorded for penalty initiation and the penalty order itself. The Tribunal found that the penalty was not sustainable as the AO did not clearly establish whether the Assessee was guilty of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Citing relevant case laws, the Tribunal deleted the penalty, ruling in favor of the Assessee.

Issue 3: Ambiguity in penalty notice and grounds for penalty imposition
The notice for penalty was found to be ambiguous, as it did not clearly specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal held that such ambiguity rendered the penalty unsustainable in the eyes of the law. Relying on precedents, the Tribunal deleted the penalty and decided the issue in favor of the Assessee against the Revenue.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the Assessee's appeal, deleting the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961, due to the ambiguity in the penalty notice and the lack of clear findings by the AO regarding the nature of the offense. The decision was based on legal precedents and the principle of clarity in penalty imposition.