2020 (4) TMI 291 - AT - Income Tax

Levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - filing inaccurate particulars of income or not? - defective notice - non specification of charge - HELD THAT - Notice issued by A.O. under section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act to be bad in Law as it did not specify under which limb of Section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, the penalty proceedings had been initiated i.e., whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. We are of the view that since 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 i.e., whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, therefore, levy of penalty is wholly unjustified. See M/S 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:
Levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 based on inaccurate particulars of income.

Analysis:
1. The appeal challenged the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 for the A.Y. 2012-2013.
2. The assessee declared NIL income but faced additions by the A.O., leading to penalty proceedings.
3. The A.O. initiated penalty under section 271(1)(c) based on the belief that inaccurate particulars of income were furnished.
4. The Assessee argued that the penalty was unjustified as the notice did not specify the grounds for penalty initiation.
5. Citing a judgment, the Assessee contended that the notice must specify if penalty is for concealment or inaccurate particulars of income.
6. The Revenue argued that the penalty was justified as inaccurate particulars were furnished without challenge.
7. The Tribunal noted the ambiguity in the A.O.'s conclusion regarding concealment or inaccurate particulars of income.
8. Referring to legal precedents, the Tribunal held that penalty cannot be levied if the notice does not specify the grounds clearly.
9. Relying on previous decisions, the Tribunal canceled the penalty, finding the notice inadequate and unjustified.
10. Consequently, the appeal of the Assessee was allowed, and the penalty was canceled.

This detailed analysis covers the grounds of appeal, arguments presented, legal precedents cited, and the final decision of the Tribunal regarding the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 based on inaccurate particulars of income.