2017 (11) TMI 1055 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - defective notice - non deletion of inappropriate words and parts of the notice - Held that - AO has not deleted the inappropriate words and parts of the notice, whereby it is not clear as to the default committed by the assessee, i.e. whether it is concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income that the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is sought to be levied. Therefore, respectfully following the decision in the case of Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (2013 (7) TMI 620 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT) we hold that the notice issued under section 274 r.w.s. 271 of the Act dated 29.11.2007 for A.Y. 2005-06 for initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act in the case on hand is invalid and consequently, the penalty proceedings are also invalid. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Issues Involved:
1. Confirmation of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by the Commissioner of Income Tax-55, Mumbai.
2. Legality of the notice issued for initiating penalty proceedings.
3. Validity of penalty proceedings based on the notice issued.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Confirmation of Penalty under Section 271(1)(c)
The appellant challenged the penalty imposed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act. The appellant contended that the penalty of &8377; 52,94,165 was confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax-55 in error. The penalty was related to the addition of income earned through consultancy services that were not declared in the income tax return. The Appellate Tribunal found that the notice issued for initiating the penalty proceedings was invalid as it did not clearly specify whether it was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Citing precedents, the Tribunal held that the notice must specifically state the grounds for penalty under section 271(1)(c). As the notice in this case was found to be invalid, the Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were also invalid. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2011-12.

Issue 2: Legality of the Notice for Initiating Penalty Proceedings
The appellant challenged the legality of the notice issued under section 274 r.w.s. 271 of the Act for initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) for the assessment year 2011-12. The Tribunal noted that the notice did not clearly specify the default committed by the assessee, whether it was concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Citing a judgment by the High Court of Karnataka, the Tribunal emphasized that the notice must unambiguously state the grounds for imposing the penalty. The Tribunal concluded that the notice in this case was vague and did not meet the requirements of the law, rendering the penalty proceedings invalid.

Issue 3: Validity of Penalty Proceedings Based on the Notice Issued
The Tribunal, after analyzing the notice issued for initiating penalty proceedings, found it to be deficient as it did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Relying on legal precedents, the Tribunal held that the notice must clearly state the grounds for imposing the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. As the notice in this case was found to be invalid, the Tribunal concluded that the penalty proceedings were also invalid. Therefore, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2011-12, as the basis for the levy of penalty was deemed invalid.

This comprehensive analysis covers the issues involved in the legal judgment, detailing the grounds of appeal, the arguments presented, and the Tribunal's decision based on legal precedents and the specific provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

← Previous Next →