2019 (5) TMI 432 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) - satisfaction recorded by the AO while initiating penalty proceedings - HELD THAT - While levying penalty, the Assessing Officer has held that the assessee has concealed particulars of its income by furnishing of inaccurate particulars of the same. In view thereof, where the AO had initiated penalty proceedings for one limb and levies penalty for both limbs; we find no merit in levy of aforesaid penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. We find support from the ratio laid down in CIT Vs. Shri Samson Perinchery 2017 (1) TMI 1292 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT wherein it was held that where there is no proper satisfaction for initiating penalty proceedings and in the absence of proper show cause notice to the assessee, there is no merit in levy of penalty. Accordingly, we delete the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act in both the appeals. The grounds of appeal raised by assessee in both the appeals are thus, allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Appeals against penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for assessment years 2004-05 and 2005-06.

Analysis:
1. Delay in Filing Appeals:
The appeals were filed after a delay of 26 days. The tribunal decided to condone the delay due to the issue being covered and the delay being minimal.

2. Grounds of Appeal for Assessment Year 2004-05:
The appellant raised multiple grounds challenging the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c). These included contentions regarding deemed concealment, submission of explanation, initiation of penalty proceedings without specific charges, limitation bar, and reasons for delay in filing the appeal.

3. Common Issue in Both Appeals:
The primary issue in both appeals was the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act.

4. Assessing Officer's Findings:
The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings based on the belief that the assessee had concealed income by furnishing inaccurate particulars. However, the tribunal noted discrepancies in the satisfaction recorded and the grounds for penalty imposition.

5. Legal Precedent and Decision:
Referring to a judgment by the Bombay High Court, the tribunal emphasized the importance of proper satisfaction for initiating penalty proceedings and issuing a show cause notice. As there was no proper satisfaction and notice in this case, the tribunal deemed the penalty levied as unjustified and deleted it in both appeals.

6. Final Decision:
Considering the discrepancies in the initiation and imposition of penalties, the tribunal allowed both appeals, ruling in favor of the assessee and deleting the penalties levied under section 271(1)(c) for the respective assessment years.

This detailed analysis highlights the grounds of appeal, the discrepancies in the Assessing Officer's findings, the legal precedent considered, and the final decision of the tribunal in favor of the appellant by deleting the penalties imposed.