2019 (1) TMI 1001 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - non specification of charge - defective notice - Held that - Notice issued by the Assessing Officer under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) to be bad in law as it did not specify which limb of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty proceedings had been initiated i.e., whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The Tribunal, while allowing the appeal of the assessee, has relied on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -VS- MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY (2013 (7) TMI 620 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT) - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues involved:
Appeal against penalty under section 271(1)(c) - Specificity of penalty charge in notice - Compliance with principles of natural justice.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under section 271(1)(c) without specifying the specific charge for which the penalty was initiated. The appellant contended that the penalty notice lacked specificity regarding the penalty charge. The appellant argued that the AO did not comply with the mandatory conditions under section 271 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appellant also raised concerns about the AO not considering the submissions and principles of natural justice.

2. The facts of the case revealed that the AO initiated penalty proceedings after framing the assessment and levied a penalty of ?7,40,549. The appellant then approached the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], who upheld the penalty imposed by the AO. Subsequently, the appellant challenged this decision by filing an appeal.

3. During the appeal proceedings, the appellant's counsel highlighted that the penalty notice did not specify the particular charge for which the penalty was imposed, citing various court decisions and precedents. The appellant relied on a decision by the ITAT Delhi Bench in a similar case, emphasizing the importance of specifying the charge in the penalty notice.

4. The Departmental Representative (DR) supported the CIT(A)'s decision to uphold the penalty. However, the Tribunal considered the arguments presented by both parties and examined the relevant material on record. The Tribunal noted that a similar issue had been addressed by the ITAT Delhi Bench in a previous case, where it was held that the penalty notice must specify the exact charge for which the penalty is being imposed.

5. Referring to the precedent set by the ITAT Delhi Bench, the Tribunal concluded that since the penalty notice in the present case did not specify the charge under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, the penalty levied by the AO and upheld by the CIT(A) was not sustainable. Therefore, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee and deleted the penalty.

6. In the final judgment, the Tribunal pronounced that the penalty imposed by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A) was deleted, aligning with the decision based on the precedent established in a similar case by the ITAT Delhi Bench. The appeal of the assessee was allowed, emphasizing the importance of specifying the penalty charge in the notice to ensure procedural fairness and compliance with legal requirements.