9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (1) TMI 1200 - AT - Income TaxLevy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - non disclosure of sale of house property - exemption u/s 54 claimed - defective notice - Held that - AO before levy of the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act issued show cause notice to the assessee wherein AO was not sure as to under which limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act penalty proceedings have been initiated in the assessment order. In the said notice the AO has mentioned have concealed the particulars of your income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income in terms of explanation 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 . In this notice the AO has mentioned both the limbs of section 271(1)(c) of the Act that assessee have concealed the particulars of the income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. AO has not specified in the notice as to under which limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act a show cause notice has been issued against the assessee for levy of the penalty. See COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR. VERSUS M/S SSA S EMERALD MEADOWS 2016 (8) TMI 1145 - SUPREME COURT - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues:
1. Challenge against the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act for AY 2011-12. 2. Validity of the show cause notice issued by the AO before the penalty was levied. 3. Legal implications of a notice containing both limbs of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. Effect of not specifying the limb of section 271(1)(c) under which penalty proceedings were initiated. 5. Impact of challenging the legality of the penalty order based on the show cause notice. Analysis: 1. The appeal challenged the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act for the assessment year 2011-12, concerning the non-disclosure of the sale of a house property by the assessee. The AO found discrepancies in the property transaction and initiated penalty proceedings, which were upheld by the Ld. CIT(A). 2. The primary contention raised was regarding the validity of the show cause notice issued by the AO before the penalty imposition. The notice stated that the assessee had concealed income or furnished inaccurate particulars, encompassing both limbs of section 271(1)(c). The assessee argued that this rendered the notice void and illegal, citing a Karnataka High Court judgment supporting this view. 3. The Tribunal noted that the notice failed to specify under which limb of section 271(1)(c) the penalty proceedings were initiated. Citing the Karnataka High Court judgment, it emphasized the importance of clarity in the notice to avoid ambiguity. The absence of such specification was deemed fatal to the validity of the penalty proceedings. 4. The AO's ambiguity in the assessment order regarding the specific limb of section 271(1)(c) under which the penalty was initiated further supported the assessee's argument. The Tribunal highlighted that the assessee had consistently challenged the legality of the penalty order, including the defective notice, throughout the proceedings. 5. Ultimately, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, quashing the penalty proceedings due to the defective show cause notice. It concluded that the entire penalty imposition was illegal and vitiated by the faulty notice, aligning with the precedent set by the Karnataka High Court judgment. The decision emphasized the significance of a clear and unambiguous notice in penalty proceedings. In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the orders of the lower authorities and canceling the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act for the relevant assessment year.
|
