2018 (10) TMI 926 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) - non specification of charge - defective notice - Held that - From the notice it is not clear whether Assessing Officer has initiated penalty proceedings for concealment of particulars of income or for furnished inaccurate particulars, however, the Assessing Officer has imposed penalty for filing of inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, the notice issued by the Assessing Officer is a vague notice and is liable to be quashed in the light of the decision of the Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Smt. Baisetty Revathi (2017 (7) TMI 776 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT) and also the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of SSA‟s Emerald Meadows (2016 (8) TMI 1145 - SUPREME COURT). - decided in favour of assessee

Summary

Issues involved:
Validity of penalty notice under section 271(1)(c) - Whether penalty proceedings initiated for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Validity of penalty notice under section 271(1)(c)
- The appellant, a private limited company, filed its return of income showing a net loss after claiming depreciation at 25%. The Assessing Officer disallowed the excess depreciation claimed and initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.
- The appellant raised an additional ground before the Tribunal challenging the validity of the penalty notice, arguing that it did not specify if the penalty was for concealment of income or inaccurate particulars.
- The Tribunal admitted the additional ground based on legal principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd., emphasizing the need to consider legal questions to correctly assess tax liability.
- The appellant contended that the penalty notice was vague, while the Departmental Representative argued it was premature but valid.
- The Tribunal found the penalty notice to be unclear as it did not specify whether it was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Citing relevant judgments, including the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Jurisdictional High Court decisions, the Tribunal held that such ambiguity in the notice renders it invalid.
- Referring to a similar case decided by a coordinate bench, the Tribunal concluded that the penalty notice issued by the Assessing Officer was invalid and subsequently canceled the penalty imposed.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, holding that the notice issued under section 274 read with section 271 was invalid, leading to the cancellation of the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer.