2019 (7) TMI 667 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - non recording the satisfaction at the time of initiation of penalty proceedings - HELD THAT - We are of the opinion that the legal requirement of making a clear cut reference to the applicable limb of clause (c) of section 271(1) is not met by the AO while initiating and levying the penalty u/s 271(1)(c). Thus the satisfaction of the AO suffers from ambiguity in his mind. Considering the above referred binding judgments we are of the view that such penalty is unsustainable in law legally. It is a settled legal proposition that the AO is under obligation to specify the appropriate limb of clause (c) of section 271(1) at the time of initiation as well as at the time of levy of penalty. Without going into the merits of the case we set-aside the order of the CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the entire penalty imposed by him. Accordingly the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed on legal issue. - Appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Issues:
Penalty under section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or concealing income.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Ambiguity in initiating and levying penalty
The appeal was filed against the order of CIT(A) confirming the penalty under section 271(1)(c) for the Assessment Year 2009-10. The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings under section 271B for not getting the books of account audited, but in the penalty order, the reason stated was for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or concealing income. The ambiguity in the mind of the Assessing Officer regarding the specific limb of clause (c) of section 271(1) was highlighted. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer failed to record proper satisfaction while initiating and levying the penalty, as there was no clear reference to the specific limb. Citing relevant judgments, the Tribunal concluded that the penalty was unsustainable in law due to the ambiguity in the Assessing Officer's satisfaction.

Issue 2: Legal requirement of specifying the applicable limb
The Tribunal emphasized the legal requirement for the Assessing Officer to specify the appropriate limb of clause (c) of section 271(1) at the time of initiation and levy of penalty. The failure to make a clear-cut reference to the applicable limb led to the penalty being deemed unsustainable in law. Relying on binding judgments, the Tribunal held that without meeting this legal requirement, the penalty could not be upheld. The Assessing Officer's ambiguity in mind was deemed a crucial factor in setting aside the penalty imposed.

Conclusion
The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the order of CIT(A) and directing the Assessing Officer to delete the entire penalty imposed. It was emphasized that the Assessing Officer must specify the relevant limb of clause (c) of section 271(1) both at the initiation and levy stages of penalty proceedings. The decision was made solely on the legal issue of ambiguity in the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer, without delving into the merits of the case. The appeal was allowed based on the legal grounds presented by the assessee.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the key legal issues, arguments presented, and the Tribunal's decision based on the ambiguity in initiating and levying the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act.

← Previous Next →