2018 (5) TMI 934 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271(1)(C) - non specification of charge - non-striking off of the relevant portions of standard show-cause notice - Held that - Show-cause notice dated 11/07/2014 reveals that Ld. AO has not specified the exact charge / limb viz. concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income for which the penalty was being initiated. The revenue could not controvert the said fact by showing any other penalty notice u/s 274 read with Section 271(1)(c). Finally, a perusal of the penalty order reveals that the penalty has been levied by observing that the assessee has filed inaccurate particulars of income. A perusal of the above facts shows that the Ld. AO has applied both the limbs simultaneously i.e. concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars for which the penalty was being initiated against the assessee. The Hon ble Supreme Court in the judgment titled as Dilip N.Shroff Vs. JCIT (2007 (5) TMI 198 - SUPREME Court) has observed that the concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income are different and carry different connotations. The Hon ble Court further held that non-striking off of the relevant portions of standard show-cause notice reflects non-application of mind by AO and hence vitiates the penalty. - Decided in favour of assessee

Issues Involved:
Appeal against deletion of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for Assessment Year 2011-12.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Assessee's Cross Objections:
The appeal by the revenue contested the deletion of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for a significant amount. The assessment was framed by the Income Tax Officer, and the penalty was levied subsequently. The assessee's cross objections raised legal grounds related to claiming exemption u/s 10A, which resulted in negative Book Profits and no tax payment u/s 115JB. The CIT(A) deleted the penalty based on the assessee's arguments and reliance on legal precedents.

2. Facts Leading to Penalty:
The penalty was initiated due to the assessee's failure to pay tax u/s 115JB, leading to the imposition of a substantial penalty amount. However, the CIT(A) accepted the assessee's explanation regarding the computation of Book Profits and the inadvertent mistake in claiming exemption u/s 10A.

3. Legal Grounds Raised by Assessee:
The AR contended that the penalty proceedings were flawed as the exact charge was not specified in the assessment order or the show-cause notice. The AR argued that there was no concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars, as the error in computation was due to a genuine mistake and not intentional.

4. Judicial Pronouncements and Legal Analysis:
The Tribunal analyzed various legal judgments, including those from the Supreme Court and High Courts, emphasizing the distinction between concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal found that the penalty order lacked clarity on the specific charge against the assessee, leading to a violation of natural justice principles and rendering the penalty order invalid.

5. Decision and Outcome:
Considering the factual matrix and legal precedents, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's cross objections, thereby dismissing the revenue's appeal. The Tribunal concluded that the penalty order was vitiated and lacked clarity on the grounds for penalty imposition, leading to the quashing of the penalty. As a result, the revenue's appeal was dismissed, and the assessee's cross objections were allowed.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment focused on the procedural and legal aspects of penalty imposition under section 271(1)(c), highlighting the importance of clarity in specifying charges and adherence to natural justice principles in penalty proceedings.

← Previous Next →