2019 (4) TMI 766 - AT - Income Tax

Levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - non specification of charge - addition of unexplained investment in Firm and on the addition of agricultural income as income from other sources - HELD THAT - Admittedly as noticed from the assessment order find that no such satisfaction as contemplated u/s.271(1)(c) have been recorded by the Assessing Officer while completing the assessment that in which limbs the issue is following. The Assessing Officer has simply mentioned that penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) are initiated separately Case of VV PROJECTS AND INVESTMENT P. LTD. VERSUS DEPUTY CIT 2007 (12) TMI 97 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT followed - Decided against revenue

Summary

Issues:
Levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) for unexplained investment in Firm and agricultural income as income from other sources.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) order for the assessment year 2009-10. The main issue raised was the confirmation of a penalty of ?54,100 under section 271(1)(c) by the Assessing Officer for the addition of unexplained investment in a Firm and agricultural income as income from other sources. The Counsel for the assessee argued that the penalty proceedings were initiated without proper jurisdiction as the Assessing Officer did not record his satisfaction in the penalty order. The Counsel relied on the decision of the Hon'ble A.P. High Court in the case of V.V. Projects and Investments Pvt Ltd., emphasizing the necessity for the Assessing Officer to form an opinion and record satisfaction of concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars before initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c). The absence of such satisfaction in the assessment order was considered a jurisdictional defect that cannot be cured.

Upon hearing the contentions and reviewing the case's facts and circumstances, the Judicial Member found that the Assessing Officer had failed to record the necessary satisfaction as required by law before initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c). Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble A.P. High Court, it was established that the Assessing Officer must explicitly form an opinion and record satisfaction regarding concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars in the assessment order itself. Failing to do so renders any penalty proceedings invalid. Therefore, following the precedent set by the Hon'ble A.P. High Court, the Judicial Member deleted the penalty of ?54,100 levied by the Assessing Officer and allowed the appeal of the assessee.

In conclusion, the appeal of the assessee was allowed based on the jurisdictional defect in the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) due to the Assessing Officer's failure to record satisfaction as required by law. The decision was in line with the ruling of the Hon'ble A.P. High Court and emphasized the importance of proper compliance with legal procedures in penalty assessments.