2019 (3) TMI 87 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - defective notice - non strike out the inappropriate words from notice - HELD THAT - Show cause notice issued in the present case u/s 274 of the Act does not specify the charge against the assessee as to whether it is for concealing particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The show cause notice u/s 274 of the Act does not strike out the inappropriate words. In these circumstances, we are of the view that imposition of penalty cannot be sustained. See JEETMAL CHORARIA VERSUS A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-43, 2017 (12) TMI 883 - ITAT, KOLKATA . - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal.
2. Imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
3. Defective notice of penalty issued by the Assessing Officer.

Analysis:
1. Delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal:
The appeal filed by the assessee was directed against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) confirming a penalty imposed by the AO under section 271(1)(c). The assessee sought condonation of a 14-day delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal, after considering the reasons provided by the assessee and the absence of objections from the learned DR, condoned the delay and proceeded to hear the appeal on merit.

2. Imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961:
The assessee, an individual engaged in the business of an electric contractor, had his total income determined by the AO after making additions, leading to penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c). The AO imposed a penalty, which was confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee challenged the penalty on grounds of a defective notice issued by the AO. The Tribunal considered the arguments presented and referred to a decision of a Coordinate Bench regarding the validity of the notice. It was held that the imposition of the penalty could not be sustained due to the defective notice, and the penalty was directed to be canceled.

3. Defective notice of penalty issued by the Assessing Officer:
The assessee's counsel contended that the notice of penalty issued by the AO was defective as it did not clearly specify the charge against the assessee regarding concealing income particulars or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Citing relevant legal precedents and decisions of different High Courts, the Tribunal concluded that the penalty imposed based on the defective notice was not sustainable. The Tribunal followed the decision of the Coordinate Bench and canceled the penalty imposed by the AO and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A).

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, canceling the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, due to the defective notice issued by the Assessing Officer. The decision was based on legal precedents and the principle that where two views exist on an issue, the view favorable to the assessee should be followed.