9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (1) TMI 1356 - AT - Income TaxPenalty u/s. 271(1)(c) - whether framing assessment order has not given clear direction for initiation of levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) but simply has made an endorsement at the end of the assessment order that penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) is initiated separately? - Held that - We find that the direction for initiation of penalty proceedings could not be gathered from the assessment order, Since in the assessment order the AO at the end the AO has merely stated penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) are separately initiated do not comply with the meaning of the word direction as contemplated even as per the amendment inserted u/s. 271(1B). In the absence of clear and unambiguous direction as contemplated under law by the AO in the assessment order, it cannot be considered as direction as per law to initiate penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. In the aforesaid factual scenario, and the law as laid in MWP Ltd. (2013 (12) TMI 1214 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT) we cancel the penalty levied by the AO. Therefore, we cancel the penalty imposed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. This ground of appeal of assessee is allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Confirmation of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Validity of the initiation of penalty proceedings by the Assessing Officer (AO). Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Confirmation of Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961: The main grievance of the assessee was the confirmation of the penalty amounting to ?8,50,367 levied by the AO under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The AO imposed the penalty for "concealment of particulars of income" during the assessment proceedings, where various additions and disallowances were made to the income of the assessee due to a lack of explanation from the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the AO's action, leading the assessee to appeal before the ITAT. 2. Validity of the Initiation of Penalty Proceedings by the AO: The key legal issue raised by the assessee was that the AO did not give a clear direction for the initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) in the assessment order. Instead, the AO merely made an endorsement at the end of the assessment order stating "penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) is initiated separately," which the assessee argued was insufficient to assume jurisdiction to invoke the penalty under Section 271(1)(c). The assessee cited the case of CIT vs. MWP Ltd. (2014) 41 taxmann.com 496 (Karnataka), where the Karnataka High Court held that such endorsements do not satisfy the requirement of assuming jurisdiction for penalty proceedings. The High Court emphasized that the assessment order must contain a clear and unambiguous direction to initiate penalty proceedings, and mere phrases like "penalty proceedings are being initiated separately" do not comply with the legal requirements. Tribunal's Analysis and Conclusion: The Tribunal examined the rival submissions and the facts of the case. It noted that the AO's endorsement in the assessment order did not constitute a clear direction for the initiation of penalty proceedings as required by law. The Tribunal referenced the Karnataka High Court's decision in MWP Ltd., which held that the satisfaction of the AO regarding concealment must be discernible in the assessment order, and a mere endorsement is insufficient. The Tribunal concluded that the AO's statement "penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) is initiated separately" did not meet the legal requirement for a clear direction to initiate penalty proceedings. Therefore, the initiation of penalty proceedings was invalid, and the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) was canceled. Final Decision: The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal and canceled the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The order was pronounced in the open court on 23rd January 2019.
|
