9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (4) TMI 743 - AT - Income TaxPenalty u/s 271(1)(c) - non specification of charge - defective notice - Held that - After perusing the aforesaid contents of the Notice dated 01.12.2010, we are of the view that the AO has initiated the penalty for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars, which is contrary to the provisions of law. We are of the view that notice issued by the AO u/s. 271(1)(c) read with Section 274 of the Act is bad in law as it does 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. Therefore, the penalty in dispute is not sustainable in the eyes of law. - Decided in favour of assessee
Issues Involved:
1. Imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. 2. Defective show-cause notice lacking specific charge. 3. Admission of additional ground by the assessee. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act: The primary issue in this case is the imposition of a penalty amounting to ?8,55,403/- under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2008-09. The Assessing Officer (AO) had issued a notice dated 01.12.2010 to the assessee, which was a standard format notice, ticking the option of "concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of such income." 2. Defective show-cause notice lacking specific charge: The assessee contended that the show-cause notice issued by the AO was defective as it did not specify the exact charge, i.e., whether the penalty was for "concealment of particulars of income" or "furnishing inaccurate particulars of income." The assessee argued that this defect rendered the penalty proceedings invalid. The Tribunal noted that the AO's notice was indeed ambiguous and contrary to the provisions of law. The Tribunal cited several judicial precedents, including decisions from the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, which supported the view that such ambiguous notices are bad in law and cannot sustain the penalty. 3. Admission of additional ground by the assessee: During the hearing, the assessee sought permission to raise an additional ground, challenging the penalty on the basis of the defective notice. The Tribunal admitted this additional ground, considering it a legal issue that did not require fresh facts to be investigated. The Tribunal referenced the Hon’ble Supreme Court's decision in NTPC Limited (229 ITR 383) and other relevant case laws to justify the admission of the additional ground. Tribunal's Conclusion: The Tribunal, after hearing both parties and reviewing the relevant records and case laws, concluded that the penalty notice issued by the AO was indeed defective. The Tribunal emphasized that the notice did not specify which limb of section 271(1)(c) was applicable, making the penalty proceedings unsustainable in law. Consequently, the Tribunal decided in favor of the assessee, canceling the penalty imposed by the AO. The Tribunal also noted that because the penalty was canceled, the other grounds raised by the assessee became academic and did not require adjudication. Final Order: The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed, and the penalty under section 271(1)(c) was canceled. The order was pronounced on 13/04/2018.
|
