9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (2) TMI 108 - AT - Income TaxPenalty u/s 271(1)(c) - non specification of charge - Held that - AO has not mentioned the specific charge in its penalty orders whether it was levied for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, in our considered view, the penalty levied by the AO and confirmed by the learned CIT (A) is not sustainable. The penalty, therefore is deleted. Hence, the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed. As we have deleted the penalty imposed by the AO & confirmed by the CIT-A on the technical ground, i.e. no specific charge has been invoked as discussed above, we are inclined to refrain ourselves from adjudicating the grounds of appeal of assessee raised on merits.
Issues Involved:
1. Appeal against penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Year 2011-12. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Imposition of Penalty The appeal was against the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee had filed inaccurate particulars of income resulting in an addition to the total income. The penalty was initiated based on a notice directing the assessee to show cause for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Assessing Officer (AO) imposed a penalty of 100% of the tax evaded on the concealed income. The penalty was confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)). Issue 2: Compliance with Section 271(1)(c) During the appeal hearing, the counsel for the assessee argued that the penalty did not meet the criteria specified under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. It was contended that the show-cause notice lacked specificity regarding whether the penalty was for concealment of income or inaccurate particulars of income. The counsel cited a Supreme Court judgment emphasizing the importance of clarity in initiating penalty proceedings. Despite presenting several judgments on this matter, the CIT(A) upheld the penalty without considering the lack of specificity in the show-cause notice. Issue 3: Lack of Specific Charge Upon review, it was observed that the penalty order did not specify the charge for which the penalty was imposed, as required by section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The penalty was levied without a clear indication of whether it was for concealing income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Citing a relevant High Court case, it was established that penalties cannot be imposed without mentioning the specific charge. The High Court's decision emphasized the necessity of a clear finding by the authority regarding the nature of the offense before levying a penalty. Judgment Outcome: The Tribunal found that the penalty imposed lacked specificity regarding the charge for which it was levied, rendering it unsustainable. As the AO failed to mention the specific charge in the penalty order, the penalty was deemed invalid and subsequently deleted. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, leading to the deletion of the penalty. The decision was based on the principle that penalties must be imposed with clarity and specificity, as mandated by the relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act. This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues involved, the arguments presented, and the ultimate outcome of the appeal against the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2011-12.
|
