2018 (10) TMI 363 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - defective notice - struck off the portion which is not applicable while initiating the penalty proceedings - Held that - It is not clear whether penalty is initiated for concealment of income or furnished inaccurate of particulars of such income. Under the similar facts and circumstances of the case, the coordinate bench of the tribunal in the case of Konchada Sreeram Vs. ITO 2017 (11) TMI 1164 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM . As per the notice, the assessing officer was not sure of which limb of the offence he sought the explanation from the assessee, whether it was for the concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Assessment of income, Reopening of assessment, Penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, Appeal against penalty, Clarity in penalty notice.

Analysis:
The case involved an appeal by the Revenue and a cross objection by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for the Assessment Year 2013-14. The assessee, an individual and Managing Director of a company, was found to have sold a piece of land without paying tax on the capital gain. The Assessing Officer reopened the assessment under section 147 of the Income Tax Act due to non-filing of the return of income. The assessment was completed ex parte, resulting in the addition of various incomes and the imposition of a penalty under section 271(1)(c) amounting to ?25,27,350. The issue raised by the assessee before the CIT(A) was regarding the clarity of the penalty notice, whether it was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.

The CIT(A) cancelled the penalty by considering the legal ground raised by the assessee and relying on relevant case laws. The Tribunal, after hearing both sides, upheld the CIT(A)'s decision. It noted that the penalty notice issued by the Assessing Officer lacked clarity as it did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Citing previous judgments, the Tribunal emphasized the importance of clearly stating the grounds for initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) to ensure the assessee's right to contest the proceedings and meet the case of the revenue. The Tribunal found the penalty notice invalid due to the lack of specificity, leading to the cancellation of the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal and the cross objection filed by the assessee, upholding the decision to cancel the penalty. It concluded that the notice issued under section 271 was invalid, and therefore, the penalty imposed was not sustainable. The decision was based on the principle that the grounds for initiating penalty proceedings must be clearly spelled out to afford the assessee a fair opportunity to contest the allegations. The order was pronounced on October 5th, 2018.