2019 (3) TMI 1355 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty levied 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(l)(c) to be bad in law as it did not specify which limb of Section 271(l)(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:
Imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 based on vague notice specifying both limbs of the section.

Analysis:
The appeal pertains to the imposition of a penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2006-07. The sole grievance of the assessee was regarding the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer and upheld by the Ld. CIT(Appeals) based on a vague notice that did not specify the exact limb or charge for which the penalty was imposed. The assessee argued that a notice must clearly indicate the specific charge under which the penalty is levied, citing legal precedents to support this contention. The Ld. DR, on the other hand, supported the decision of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) based on a previous judgment.

Upon careful consideration of the case records and legal arguments, the Tribunal observed that the notice and penalty order were indeed vague and did not clearly specify the exact limb or charge for which the penalty was imposed. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of clarity in penalty proceedings and highlighted the necessity for the Assessing Officer to indicate the specific charge contravened by the assessee. Referring to relevant legal judgments, the Tribunal concluded that in the absence of a clear charge, the levy of penalty was not justified. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) and directed the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty imposed on the assessee.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, emphasizing the significance of specificity in penalty proceedings and the necessity for clear communication of the charges to enable the assessee to prepare an adequate defense. The decision underscored the principle that vague notices and penalty orders are not permissible under the law, and penalties should only be imposed based on specific charges communicated to the assessee.