2018 (8) TMI 667 - AT - Income Tax

Levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - validity of notice issued u/s 274 - Additions were made u/s 68 on account of sundry deposits - Held that - In the facts of the present case, undisputedly, the notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) doesn t specify the exact charge against the assessee as to whether it relates to concealing the particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The factum of non- striking off of the irrelevant clause in the notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) is hereby held as reflective of non- application of mind by the AO, the penalty imposed U/s 271(1)(c) is deleted. - Decided in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Additional ground of appeal raised by the assessee challenging penalty imposition under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act.
2. Validity of penalty imposition for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.
3. Admissibility of additional ground of appeal as a purely legal ground.
4. Application of legal precedent in determining the charge against the assessee in penalty proceedings.
5. Non-striking off of irrelevant clause in the penalty notice as reflective of non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer.

Analysis:

1. The assessee raised an additional ground of appeal challenging the penalty imposition under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The additional ground was admitted for adjudication as it was deemed to be a purely legal ground that goes to the root of the matter, following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT.

2. The penalty proceedings were initiated for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The assessee argued that the penalty notice did not specify the exact charge against them, rendering the consequent penalty illegal and bad in law. Citing legal precedents, including decisions by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Karnataka High Court, the Tribunal held that the non-specific charge in the penalty notice demonstrated non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer, leading to the deletion of the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c).

3. The Tribunal considered the application of legal precedent in determining the charge against the assessee in penalty proceedings. Referring to decisions by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Karnataka High Court, the Tribunal emphasized the importance of clearly specifying the charge against the assessee to afford them a reasonable opportunity to defend themselves.

4. The non-striking off of the irrelevant clause in the penalty notice was deemed reflective of non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer. Citing legal authorities and previous decisions, the Tribunal concluded that the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) was liable to be deleted due to the ambiguity in the notice and lack of specific charge against the assessee.

5. The Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, deleting the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) based on the grounds of non-specific charge in the penalty notice. As the penalty was deleted on this count, other contentions raised by the assessee on the merits of the case were not addressed in the judgment.