2019 (10) TMI 453 - AT - Income Tax

Levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Defective notice - non specification of charge - HELD THAT - A.O. issued show cause notice for levy of penalty in which A.O. has mentioned both the limbs of section 271(1)(c) of the Act that assessee has concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. The issue of the notice is bad in law as it did not specify under which limb of Section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act penalty proceedings have been initiated whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. See M/S SSA S EMERALD MEADOWS 2016 (8) TMI 1145 - SC ORDER - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge against the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 due to lack of specification in the show cause notice regarding the nature of penalty imposed.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed by the Assessee against the Order of the Ld. CIT(A)-XX, New Delhi, challenging the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act for the A.Y. 2010-2011. The Assessee contended that the penalty was unjustified as the Assessing Officer (A.O.) did not specify whether it was for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. This legal issue was admitted for disposal of the appeal.

The Assessee referred to a show cause notice dated 28.03.2013 where the A.O. mentioned that the Assessee had concealed income particulars or furnished inaccurate particulars of income. The Assessee argued that this lack of specificity in the notice rendered it bad in law, citing a judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in a related case. The Assessee's counsel also referenced a judgment of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court and the subsequent confirmation by the Supreme Court, supporting the Assessee's position.

On the other hand, the Departmental Representative (D.R.) relied on the orders of the lower authorities and cited judgments of the Hon'ble Madras High Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in different cases. After hearing both parties, the Tribunal noted that the show cause notice did not specify under which limb of Section 271(1)(c) the penalty proceedings were initiated. Citing precedents from the Karnataka High Court and the Delhi High Court, the Tribunal held that the notice was bad in law, thereby vitiating the penalty proceedings. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and canceled the penalty, ruling in favor of the Assessee.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the Assessee's appeal, emphasizing that the lack of specification in the show cause notice regarding the nature of penalty proceedings rendered the penalty unjustifiable. The Tribunal's decision was based on legal precedents from various High Courts and the Supreme Court, highlighting the importance of clarity in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act.