9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (9) TMI 716 - AT - Income TaxPenalty u/s. 271(1)(c) - ineligible notice - notice issued under section 274 r.w.s. 271 is a stereotype one not tick marked for which limb of the two limbs to section 271(1)(c) the penalty is initiated - Held that - Notice issued under section 274 must reveal application of mind by the Assessing Officer and the assessee must be made aware of the exact charge on which he had to file his explanation. The Court observed, vagueness and ambiguity in the notice deprives the assessee of reasonable opportunity as he is unaware of the exact charge he has to face. The Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court in Samson Perinchery (2017 (1) TMI 1292 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT), following the decision in CIT v/s Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory, 2013 (7) TMI 620 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT held, order imposing penalty has to be made only on the ground on which the penalty proceedings has been initiated. In addition to the aforesaid binding judgments, there are several orders passed by co-ordinate Benches of the Tribunal on this very point. In all those orders also penalty levied u s. 271(l)(c) of the Act on the basis of similar vague notice was cancelled. Thus no merit for the penalty so imposed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Delay in filing the appeal. 2. Imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for non-disclosure of long-term capital gain. 3. Validity of the notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c). Detailed Analysis: 1. Delay in Filing the Appeal: The appeal was filed with a delay of 34 days. The Tribunal examined the reasons provided for the delay and the supporting affidavit. Concluding that there were sufficient reasons for the delay, the Tribunal condoned the delay in the substantial interest of justice and proceeded to hear the appeal on its merits. 2. Imposition of Penalty under Section 271(1)(c): The assessee, an individual with income from capital gains and house property, failed to disclose long-term capital gains in the original return. Upon scrutiny, the Assessing Officer (AO) discovered this omission, and the assessee subsequently filed a revised computation and paid the due tax. However, the AO initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and concealment of income. This penalty was confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], leading to the present appeal. The assessee argued that the omission was due to a mistake by the Chartered Accountant (CA) and not an intentional act of concealment. The assessee cited the Supreme Court decision in Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. v/s CIT, 348 ITR 306 (SC), to support the claim that penalties should not be imposed for such bona fide mistakes. 3. Validity of the Notice Issued under Section 274 Read with Section 271(1)(c): The assessee contended that the notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) was defective. The notice was a standardized form that did not specify whether the penalty was for "concealing particulars of income" or "furnishing inaccurate particulars of income," thereby indicating non-application of mind by the AO. This argument was supported by several judicial precedents, including the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory, 359 ITR 565, which emphasized the necessity of specifying the charge in the notice. The Tribunal noted that the AO failed to record satisfaction regarding which limb of Section 271(1)(c) was applicable, rendering the penalty proceedings invalid. The Tribunal also referenced the Hon'ble Supreme Court's observations in Dilip N. Shroff v/s JCIT, 291 ITR 519 (SC), and CIT v/s Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd., 322 ITR 158 (SC), which underscored the importance of clarity in the notice to provide the assessee a fair opportunity to respond. The Tribunal concluded that the vague notice deprived the assessee of a reasonable opportunity to explain the stand, thus violating principles of natural justice. Conclusion: Given the defects in the notice and the bona fide nature of the mistake, the Tribunal found no merit in the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c). Consequently, the AO was directed to delete the penalty of ?3,28,610. The appeal was allowed in favor of the assessee. Order Pronounced: The order was pronounced in the open court on 26/07/2017.
|
