2019 (5) TMI 1609 - AT - Income Tax

Levy of penalty u/s 271(1) (c) - non-recording of proper satisfaction by AO for initiating the penalty proceedings - no proper service of notice - HELD THAT - The facts involved in this matter are very similar to the facts involved in the case of CIT vs Virgo Marketing (P) Ltd. 2008 (1) TMI 15 - HIGH COURT, DELHI wherein while assessing the income of the assessee, at the end of the order, AO observed Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) have been initiated separately. There was no proper satisfaction recorded by the learned Assessing Officer while concluding the assessment, and while respectfully following this decision of the Hon ble jurisdictional High Court in this case, we conclude that there is no proper recording of satisfaction by the Ld. AO while initiating the penalty proceedings. AO to assume jurisdiction u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, proper notice is necessary and because of the defect in notice u/s 274 of the Act and on the facts of this case, it is difficult to hold that the learned AO rightly assumed jurisdiction to pass the order levying the penalty. Because of non-recording of proper satisfaction for initiating the penalty proceedings, the penalty cannot be sustained. We accordingly quash the penalty proceedings. - Decided in favour of assessee

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Appeal against penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act.
2. Proper recording of satisfaction by the Assessing Officer for initiating penalty proceedings.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, a government doctor, filed her return of income for Assessment Year 2012-13, claiming deductions under section 54 of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer made additions to the income, including long-term capital gains, interest on housing loan, and interest from bank accounts. Subsequently, penalty proceedings were initiated under section 271(1)(c) for alleged concealment of income. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld the penalty, stating that the appellant furnished inaccurate particulars to evade tax. However, the appellant argued that the penalty notice did not specify the grounds under which the penalty was proposed, violating principles of natural justice.

2. The appellant relied on legal precedents to support their argument that penalty proceedings must specify the grounds under section 271(1)(c) clearly. The Karnataka High Court's decision emphasized that penalty should be imposed based on the grounds mentioned in the initiation notice, ensuring the appellant has the opportunity to defend accordingly. The High Court further ruled that the omission to specify the grounds for penalty initiation makes the penalty order liable for cancellation, even if income concealment is proven later. This principle was upheld in a subsequent case by the High Court, and the Supreme Court dismissed the Revenue's challenge.

3. The Tribunal found similarities between the current case and a previous judgment where the High Court held that the absence of proper satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer during penalty initiation renders the penalty unsustainable. Consequently, the Tribunal quashed the penalty proceedings in the appellant's case, emphasizing the necessity of a proper notice under section 274 for the Assessing Officer to assume jurisdiction under section 271(1)(c). Due to the defect in the penalty notice and the lack of proper satisfaction recorded, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and annulled the penalty levied on the appellant.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision in this case highlights the importance of proper recording of satisfaction by the Assessing Officer and clear specification of grounds in penalty notices under section 271(1)(c) to ensure fairness and uphold principles of natural justice.