2018 (10) TMI 125 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) - non specification of charge - defective notice - Held that - We find that the notice dated 15.10.2010 issued by the AO u/s. 274 read with Section 271 does not specify which limb of section 271 of the Act, the penalty proceedings had been proposed and levied i.e. whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars, and the decisions of Karnataka High Court in CIT vs Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory 2013 (7) TMI 620 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT and CIT & Anr. Vs. M/s SSA s Emerald Meadows 2015 (11) TMI 1620 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT are applicable. We find it difficult to sustain the penalty levied and sustained by the authorities below. Therefore, the penalty in dispute is not sustainable in the eyes of law. We accordingly quash the penalty proceedings. Since the penalty has been quashed on the legal ground, there is no need to adjudicate the merits of the case. - Decided in favour of assessee

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars.

Analysis:
1. The Assessee challenged the penalty upheld by the Ld. CIT(A) under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessment resulted in various additions to the declared income, leading to the penalty imposition.

2. The Assessee argued that disallowances under Rule 8D or expenditure on gift items do not automatically constitute concealment of income. The notice by the AO did not specify the grounds for penalty under section 271(1)(c). Legal precedents were cited to support the argument that penalty proceedings must specify the exact grounds.

3. The Ld. DR relied on the lower authorities' orders, supporting the penalty imposition.

4. The Tribunal observed that the notice issued by the AO did not specify the specific limb of section 271 under which the penalty was proposed, citing relevant legal judgments. The Karnataka High Court's decision emphasized that penalty proceedings must align with the grounds specified in the notice.

5. The Tribunal referred to the Karnataka High Court's decision in another case, where it was held that the omission to explicitly mention the grounds for penalty initiation renders the penalty order liable for cancellation, even if concealment of income is proven.

6. The Special Leave Petition filed by the Revenue challenging the High Court's judgment was dismissed by the Supreme Court, reinforcing the requirement for specifying penalty grounds in the notice.

7. The Supreme Court's dismissal of the Revenue's Special Leave Petition in another case reiterated the importance of explicitly stating the grounds for penalty initiation in the notice.

8. Considering the legal precedents and the lack of specificity in the penalty notice, the Tribunal concluded that the penalty imposed was not sustainable in law. Therefore, the penalty proceedings were quashed without delving into the case's merits.

9. Consequently, the appeal by the Assessee was allowed, and the penalty was annulled based on legal grounds, rendering further case adjudication unnecessary.