2017 (12) TMI 745 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s.271(1)(c) - Concealment of income - defective notice - Held that - As relying on case of M/s. SSA s Emerald Meadows 2016 (8) TMI 1145 - SUPREME COURT Notice issued by AO under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)( c) to be bad in law as it did not specify which limb of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty proceedings had been initiated i.e., whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Appeal against levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for assessment year 2011-12.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Justification of penalty imposition
The appeal was against the confirmation of a penalty of ?1,33,515 under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars/concealing income. The Assessing Officer's order lacked clarity on the basis for the penalty, whether for concealment or inaccuracy.

Issue 2: Legal Precedents
Counsel for the assessee cited a Supreme Court judgment emphasizing that penalty orders must explicitly state the grounds for initiation. The Tribunal noted a similar case where the High Court ruled in favor of the assessee due to lack of clarity in the penalty notice.

Issue 3: Requirement of Clarity in Penalty Proceedings
The Tribunal highlighted the necessity for the Assessing Officer to specify the grounds for penalty imposition, either concealment or inaccuracy, as they carry distinct meanings. It referenced a High Court case emphasizing the importance of clear notice marking the relevant limb of section 271(1)(c) under which the penalty is levied.

Issue 4: Non-Application of Mind by Assessing Officer
The Tribunal echoed the Supreme Court's stance that a standard proforma notice without striking irrelevant clauses indicates a lack of application of mind by the Assessing Officer. In this case, the penalty order showed a similar deficiency, leading to the decision to cancel the penalty.

Issue 5: Decision and Ruling
Based on legal precedents and the lack of clarity in the penalty imposition, the Tribunal canceled the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer. The decision aligned with a previous Supreme Court ruling, leading to the allowance of the assessee's appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, canceling the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act due to the Assessing Officer's failure to specify the grounds clearly, following legal precedents emphasizing the necessity for clarity in penalty proceedings.