2020 (3) TMI 715 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271 (1) (c) - Eligibility of Notice u/s 274 - vague notice - HELD THAT - We find that in the notice issued by the AO under section 274 the AO is alleging that the assessee has concealed the particulars of his income or has furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. Hence it is seen that the allegation is vague Notice u/s 274 of I T Act should specifically state the grounds mentioned in section 271 (1) (c) i.e. whether it is for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and clause q) specifically states that Sending printed form where all the ground mentioned in Section 271 are mentioned would not satisfy requirement of law. Clause r) specifically states that the assessee should know the grounds which he has to meet specifically. Otherwise principles of natural justice is offended. On the basis of such proceedings no penalty could be imposed to the assessee as relying on MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY OTHS. M/S. V.S. LAD SONS 2013 (7) TMI 620 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Penalty imposition under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act based on vague notice lacking specific allegations.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the order of the CIT(A) regarding the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The primary contention raised by the assessee was the vagueness of the penalty order issued by the Assessing Officer (AO). The assessee argued that the notice did not specify whether the charge was related to concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, citing the judgment of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in a similar case. The Revenue, represented by the Departmental Representative, supported the lower authorities' decision. The tribunal found that the notice issued by the AO lacked specificity, aligning with the principles outlined in the aforementioned judgment. The tribunal reiterated key points from the judgment, emphasizing that the grounds for penalty imposition must be clearly stated in the notice under section 274 of the Act. The tribunal highlighted that using a printed form with generic grounds does not meet legal requirements and violates principles of natural justice. Therefore, following the legal precedent, the penalty under section 271(1)(c) was deleted.

The tribunal also examined a tribunal order cited by the Revenue's representative but found it distinguishable from the present case due to differences in the nature of the notice issued. The tribunal noted that the specific allegations in the typed notice differed from the circumstances in the previous case where a printed proforma was used. Consequently, the tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, emphasizing the importance of clear and specific grounds for penalty imposition. The judgment was pronounced on January 30, 2020, in favor of the assessee, based on the legal principles outlined in the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court's decision and the tribunal's analysis of the notice issued by the AO.