2018 (5) TMI 432 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271 (1) (c) - non specification of charge - Held that - AO is required to specify which limb of Section 271 (1)(c) the penalty proceedings had been initiated, i.e., whether for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. From the perusal of the notice u/s.274 r.w.s. 271 in the present appeal, it is very much obvious that the Assessing Officer has not specified the same. The notice in fact is in standard pro forma without the irrelevant clauses therein being struck off. This indicates non application of mind on the part of the Assessing Officer while issuing the penalty notice. The penalty proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer are bad in law and accordingly the penalty so initiated is directed to be deleted - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for assessment year 2010-11.
- Validity of penalty proceedings due to non-specification of charge under which penalty was initiated.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Appeal against Penalty Imposition
The appeal was filed by the assessee against the penalty of ?8,21,000 imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee, a salaried employee, initially declared an income of ?1,86,039, later revised to ?39,84,410. The assessment was completed under section 143(3) at an income of ?67,81,910, including additions for capital gains and unexplained cash deposits. The penalty was imposed by the Assessing Officer on the quantum additions, which was upheld by the first appellate authority. The assessee challenged this penalty before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, contending that the penalty was unjustified.

Issue 2: Validity of Penalty Proceedings
The assessee argued that the notice initiating penalty proceedings did not specify the charge or limb under which the penalty was imposed, rendering the penalty proceedings invalid. The Tribunal examined the penalty notice and found that the Assessing Officer had not specified whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, as required under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Citing relevant case laws, the Tribunal emphasized the mandatory nature of specifying the charge in the penalty notice. The Tribunal referred to judgments of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, which held that failure to mention the grounds for penalty in the notice renders the penalty order liable for cancellation, even if concealment of income is proven. The Tribunal concluded that the penalty proceedings were bad in law due to the non-specification of the charge in the notice, directing the deletion of the penalty and setting aside the order of the Ld. CIT (A).

In the final decision, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, emphasizing the importance of properly specifying the charge in penalty notices to ensure the validity of penalty proceedings. The order was pronounced on 3rd May 2018, in favor of the assessee.