2018 (12) TMI 1091 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Non specification of charge - Held that - A.O has made proper satisfaction in the body of the assessment order but in the notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act he failed to mention the limbs for which penalty proceedings have been initiated. It is the negligence of the Ld. A.O in not making proper specific charge in the notice u/s 274 about the addition for which penalty proceedings have been initiated. Ld. A.O should be clear as to whether the alleged addition goes under the limb of concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income . Merely issuing notice in general proforma will negate the very purpose of natural justice as held by the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Dilip N Shraf 2007 (5) TMI 198 - SUPREME COURT that the quasicriminal proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act ought to comply with the principles of natural justice. The alleged notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 31.12.10 is invalid, untenable and suffers from the infirmity of non application of mind by the Assessing Officer. We accordingly direct to delete the penalty of ₹ 16,00,000/- imposed u/s 271(1)(c) on this ground itself. - Decided in favour of assessee

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act.
2. Merits of the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Initiation of Penalty Proceedings Under Section 271(1)(c):

The assessee challenged the legality of the penalty proceedings initiated under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, arguing that the Assessing Officer (A.O.) failed to specify the exact charge for which the penalty was initiated, i.e., whether it was for "concealing the particulars of income" or "furnishing inaccurate particulars of income." The Tribunal noted that the A.O. issued a general notice without specifying the charge, which is a requirement as per the legal precedents. The Tribunal referred to the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton Ginning Factory, which held that the notice under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) must specifically mention the charge. The Tribunal concluded that the notice issued was invalid and directed the deletion of the penalty of ?16,00,000 on this ground alone.

2. Merits of the Penalty Levied Under Section 271(1)(c):

The Tribunal did not delve into the merits of the penalty levied, as the penalty proceedings were already found to be invalid due to the procedural lapse in the issuance of the notice. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had remained non-compliant and negligent during the penalty proceedings and appellate proceedings. However, since the penalty was deleted on legal grounds, the arguments on the merits were rendered academic and not addressed.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, finding that the penalty proceedings initiated under Section 271(1)(c) were invalid due to the failure of the A.O. to specify the exact charge in the notice. The penalty of ?16,00,000 was directed to be deleted, and the other arguments on the merits were not considered. The order was pronounced in the open Court on 06.12.2018.