2019 (8) TMI 190 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - defective notice - non specification of charge - non striking irrelevant portion of the notice - HELD THAT - As carefully gone through the notice issued u/s. 274 r.w.s. 271 of the Act narrated in para 4 of this order. As seen from the above notice issued u/s. 274 of the Act, AO has not struck out the irrelevant portion of the notice. In other words he has not specified whether he is levying penalty for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. As held by the Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Anr. vs. M/s. SSA s Emerald Meadows 2015 (11) TMI 1620 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT that the notice issued by the Assessing Officer u/s. 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) is to be bad in law as it did not specify which limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty proceedings had been initiated, i.e., whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. This view was confirmed by the Supreme Court in the same case, i.e., CIT Anr. vs. M/s. SSA s Emerald Meadows 2016 (8) TMI 1145 - SC ORDER Penalty proceedings initiated by the AO is void ab initio and allow the appeal of the assessee. Since we have quashed the penalty proceedings itself, we refrain from adjudicating the other grounds of appeal raised by the assessee.- Appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against CIT(A) order for assessment years 2004-05 to 2009-10, Penalty imposition for concealment of income, Defective show cause notice u/s 274, Admissibility of additional grounds of appeal.

Analysis:

1. Common Grounds of Appeals:
The assessee challenged the CIT(A) order citing it as against the law and facts of the case, unsustainable. The primary contention was that the assessment was based on estimation of gross receipts, not on definite omission or concealment. The appellant argued that penalty imposition for concealment was erroneous due to the assessment method used.

2. Additional Grounds of Appeals:
The additional grounds raised focused on the defective show cause notice u/s 274, which failed to specify the grounds for penalty imposition clearly. The assessee sought admission of these grounds, citing Supreme Court precedent allowing tribunals discretion to admit additional grounds. The tribunal admitted the additional grounds for adjudication, considering the appellant's bona fide reasons for not raising them earlier.

3. Defective Show Cause Notice:
The AR argued that the show cause notice u/s 274 was defective as it did not specify whether penalty was proposed for concealing income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Citing the Karnataka High Court judgment, the tribunal held that such notices must clearly state the grounds for penalty imposition. The tribunal referred to various legal precedents supporting this interpretation.

4. Decision and Rationale:
After considering the arguments and reviewing the notice issued by the Assessing Officer, the tribunal found the penalty proceedings initiated to be void ab initio due to the lack of specificity in the notice. Relying on the Karnataka High Court and Supreme Court judgments, the tribunal concluded that the penalty proceedings were flawed. Consequently, the tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, quashing the penalty proceedings and refraining from adjudicating other grounds raised.

In conclusion, the tribunal's decision was based on the defective show cause notice u/s 274, which failed to specify the grounds for penalty imposition clearly. The tribunal followed legal precedents to rule the penalty proceedings as void ab initio, ultimately allowing the appeal of the assessee.