2019 (5) TMI 744 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - non specification whether the assessee is accused of concealment of particulars of any taxable income or it had furnished inaccurate particulars of such income ? - HELD THAT - The show cause notice u/s. 274 of the Act is defective as it does not spell out the grounds on which the penalty is sought to be imposed. Following the decision of M/S MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY OTHS., M/S. V.S. LAD SONS, 2013 (7) TMI 620 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT we hold that the orders imposing penalty in all the assessment years have to be held as invalid and consequently penalty imposed is cancelled. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to correctness of penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 due to lack of specificity in penalty notice regarding concealment or inaccurate particulars of income.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal arose from the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-5 Kolkata's order upholding the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The delay in filing the appeal was condoned due to the assessee's explanation of illness. The primary grievance of the assessee was the correctness of the penalty imposed. The tribunal referenced a previous decision where a penalty was deleted due to the Assessing Officer's failure to specify whether the penalty was for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Citing the Karnataka High Court's ruling, the tribunal emphasized the necessity for the penalty notice to clearly state the grounds for penalty imposition, whether for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.

The tribunal highlighted that penalty proceedings should be initiated based on specific grounds, and the notice under section 274 must specify whether the penalty is for concealment or inaccurate particulars of income. The tribunal reiterated that penalty imposition should align with the grounds for which the assessee was called upon to answer. It emphasized that the assessment order should reflect the conditions justifying penalty imposition, and the deeming provisions should be clearly applicable. Additionally, the tribunal stressed that the imposition of penalty is not automatic and must be based on the assessee's failure to offer a genuine explanation.

Based on the above legal principles, the tribunal concluded that the penalty imposition in the present case was invalid due to the defective show cause notice that failed to specify the grounds for penalty. Consequently, the tribunal canceled the penalty imposed on the assessee and allowed the appeal. The tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty in question, following the reasoning of the previous decision and the legal requirements outlined by the Karnataka High Court.

In summary, the tribunal allowed the appeal, emphasizing the importance of clear grounds for penalty imposition and adherence to legal principles governing penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.