2017 (12) TMI 1466 - AT - Income Tax

Levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) - no clear satisfaction recorded by the AO at the time of initiation of penalty proceedings - Held that - AO is found to have used or at one place, and at other place and concealed the particulars of your income at one place and furnished inaccurate particulars of such income at other place etc.. Nowhere, the correct limb of clause (c) to section 271(1) of the Act is clearly referred to. In view of the documents (assessment order/penalty order/notices u/s.274) in our considered view, without going into the merits of the penalty as well as the nature of additional income offered by the assessee in the return of income files u/s.153A. The ambiguity in the mind of the AO is obvious at the time of initiation as well as levy of penalty proceedings. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act for Assessment Year 2009-10.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the order of CIT(A)-12, Pune regarding the penalty of ?69,74,391 imposed by the AO under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The assessee raised multiple grounds, with the primary issue revolving around the confirmation of the penalty. The facts revealed that the assessee initially declared income of ?12,83,31,220, but after a search action, declared an additional income of ?2 crores as "on-money" from flat sales. The AO assessed the total income at ?14,89,16,841 and initiated penalty proceedings, which was confirmed by the CIT(A).

The additional ground raised by the assessee challenged the validity of the penalty order, contending that the notice issued lacked proper application of mind, rendering the penalty bad in law. The counsel highlighted the ambiguity in the AO's satisfaction regarding the specific limb of clause (c) to section 271(1) of the Act. The counsel argued that the penalty proceedings were deficient due to the lack of clarity in specifying the applicable limb. Various judgments were cited to support the argument that a clear satisfaction is necessary at the initiation of penalty proceedings.

The Departmental Representative for the Revenue supported the AO and CIT(A) orders. The Tribunal analyzed the assessment order, penalty order, and notices issued under section 274. It was observed that the AO's language used terms like "concealed income" and "furnished inaccurate particulars," but failed to clearly specify the relevant limb of clause (c) to section 271(1) of the Act. The Tribunal noted the ambiguity in the AO's mind during the initiation and levy of penalty proceedings, leading to the allowance of the additional ground raised by the assessee. Consequently, the appeal was partly allowed, with the additional ground upheld and other grounds on merits dismissed as academic.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found the penalty proceedings to be flawed due to the AO's ambiguity in specifying the applicable limb of clause (c) to section 271(1) of the Act. The judgment highlighted the importance of a clear satisfaction at the time of initiating penalty proceedings, as supported by legal precedents.