2018 (5) TMI 1102 - AT - Income Tax

Levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) - non specification of charge - AO initiated the penalty proceedings for the offence of concealing the particulars of income and levied the same for furnishing inaccurate particulars - Held that - It is a case where the AO did not have clarity of thought and AO suffered from ambiguity in his mind with regard to the applicable limb of clause (c) of section 271(1) to the facts of the case. Therefore, we find the penalty order of the AO falls short of legal requirement on the issue of recording of satisfaction. Initiation of penalty proceedings is made for one limb and the penalty was levied for other limb. Such penalty order is unsustainable in law legally. The manner of initiating and levying of penalty without making reference to the specific limb of clause (c) is unsustained. AO is under obligation to specify the correct limb at the time of initiation as well as at the time of levy of penalty. Therefore, the penalty levied by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) is unsustainable on technical grounds. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961
- Proper satisfaction recorded for initiation of penalty
- Correct application of penalty provisions

Analysis:

1. Levy of Penalty under Section 271(1)(c):
The appeal was filed against the order of the CIT(A) confirming the penalty of ?3,91,04,244 on the additional income disclosed during search proceedings. The AO initiated penalty proceedings under the clause of 'concealing the particulars of income' but levied the penalty for 'furnishing inaccurate particulars'. The Tribunal found this discrepancy unsustainable in law. The AO's lack of clarity and ambiguity in choosing the applicable limb of section 271(1)(c) rendered the penalty order legally insufficient. The Tribunal cited previous judgments to support its decision, emphasizing the necessity for the AO to specify the correct limb both during initiation and levy of penalty. Consequently, the penalty levied by the AO and upheld by the CIT(A) was deemed unsustainable on technical grounds, leading to the allowance of the additional ground raised by the assessee and partial allowance of the appeal.

2. Proper Satisfaction Recorded for Initiation of Penalty:
The Tribunal analyzed the assessment order and penalty order to determine if proper satisfaction was recorded for the initiation of penalty. It was noted that the AO initiated penalty proceedings for one reason but levied the penalty for another reason. This discrepancy indicated a lack of clarity and ambiguity in the AO's decision-making process. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of recording clear and specific satisfaction for initiating and levying penalties under the Income Tax Act. The failure to do so rendered the penalty order unsustainable on legal grounds.

3. Correct Application of Penalty Provisions:
The Tribunal emphasized the importance of correctly applying penalty provisions under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. It noted that the AO's failure to specify the correct limb of the penalty provision at the time of initiation and levy of penalty led to an unsustainable penalty order. The Tribunal referred to relevant case laws to support its decision and underscored the legal requirement for clarity and specificity in penalty proceedings. By allowing the additional ground raised by the assessee, the Tribunal highlighted the necessity for adherence to legal procedures in penalty imposition.

In conclusion, the Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, emphasizing the need for clear and specific satisfaction in penalty proceedings and the correct application of penalty provisions under the Income Tax Act. The judgment highlighted the legal requirement for clarity and precision in penalty imposition, ensuring the sustainability and validity of penalty orders.