2017 (8) TMI 75 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) - concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of such income - Held that - The entire penalty proceedings initiated in the instant case are vitiated as the notice issued is not in accordance with law, inasmuch as, the said notice nowhere specified whether the proceedings were being initiated for the reason of concealment of particulars of income or on account of furnishing of inaccurate particulars thereof. Even the satisfaction note made in the assessment order or the penalty order also does not indicate whether it was a case of concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, laying our hands on the decisions of Gujrat High Court in the case of Manu Engineering, 1978 (9) TMI 18 - GUJARAT High Court and Virgo Marketing 2008 (1) TMI 885 - DELHI HIGH COURT where it has been held that levy of penalty has to be clear as to the limb 8 for which it is levied and the position being unclear penalty is not sustainable, we are of the considered opinion that the penalty imposed in the instance case is void ab initio. Similar view has been taken by Hon ble Karnataka High Court in Manjunatha s case (2013 (7) TMI 620 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT). We, therefore, cancel the penalty imposed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act on this legal aspect itself and hence, we need not to enter into other grounds or reasons for penalty and their explanations extended by the assessee on merits. Appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Initiation of penalty proceedings without specifying the relevant limb of section 271(1)(c).
2. Merits of penalty imposition based on various additions and disallowances made by the Assessing Officer.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was against the order of the ld. CIT(A) confirming the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. The appellant challenged the initiation of penalty proceedings, arguing that the Assessing Officer failed to specify the limb of section 271(1)(c) for which the penalty was initiated. The appellant relied on legal precedents to support their argument. The Tribunal found the penalty proceedings to be flawed as the notice did not clarify the basis for the penalty, following the decisions of various High Courts. Consequently, the penalty was canceled on this legal ground alone, without delving into the other grounds raised by the appellant.

2. On the merits of the penalty imposition, the appellant contested the additions and disallowances made by the Assessing Officer, which formed the basis for the penalty. The appellant provided detailed submissions regarding sundry expenses, liabilities, and loans, asserting that all relevant information had been disclosed, and there was no concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The appellant highlighted that certain expenses were still payable, liabilities existed, and payments had been made in subsequent years. The appellant also argued that penalties cannot be levied on additions made under specific sections of the Act without conclusive findings on the genuineness of the credits. The Tribunal did not delve into these merit-based arguments as the penalty was canceled on procedural grounds.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, canceling the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) solely on the basis of procedural deficiencies in the initiation of penalty proceedings. The detailed merit-based arguments put forth by the appellant regarding the additions and disallowances made by the Assessing Officer were not addressed due to the procedural invalidity of the penalty imposition.