2020 (4) TMI 784 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Defective notice - addition on account of undisclosed purchases vis- -vis the sales and corresponding profit - assessee s pleadings is that the Assessing Officer s show cause notice nowhere specified as to whether the same involved concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income - HELD THAT - As decided in NISHITH KUMAR JAIN VERSUS ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-XXVII, KOLKATA 2016 (3) TMI 642 - ITAT KOLKATA on the facts of the present case that the show cause notice u/s. 274 of the Act is defective as it does not spell out the grounds on which the penalty is sought to be imposed. Following the decision of the MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY OTHS., M/S. V.S. LAD SONS, 2013 (7) TMI 620 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT we hold that the orders imposing penalty in all the assessment years have to be held as invalid and consequently penalty imposed is cancelled. For the reasons given above, we hold that levy of penalty in the present case cannot be sustained. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Assessment year 2014-15 - Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Issue of Defective Show Cause Notice:
The primary issue in this case revolved around the correctness of the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The crux of the matter was whether the Assessing Officer's show cause notice adequately specified whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The tribunal referred to a previous decision where a similar penalty was deleted due to the inadequacy of the show cause notice. Citing the Karnataka High Court's ruling, the tribunal emphasized that the notice under section 274 should explicitly state the grounds for the penalty, either for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The tribunal concluded that the penalty imposition in the present case was invalid due to the defective show cause notice.

2. Legal Principles for Imposing Penalty under Section 271(1)(c):
The tribunal further elaborated on the legal principles to be followed while imposing penalties under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. It highlighted that the penalty proceedings should be initiated based on specific grounds mentioned in the assessment order, and the notice under section 274 must clearly specify whether the penalty is for concealing income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The tribunal emphasized that the penalty proceedings should be confined to the grounds mentioned in the notice, and imposing a penalty on different grounds than those specified in the notice would violate the principles of natural justice. Additionally, the tribunal clarified that the assessment proceedings' findings regarding concealment of income or furnishing incorrect particulars do not operate as res judicata in penalty proceedings.

3. Decision and Conclusion:
Based on the above analysis, the tribunal held that the penalty imposition in the present case was not sustainable due to the defective show cause notice that failed to specify the grounds for the penalty. Consequently, the tribunal canceled the penalty imposed on the assessee and allowed the appeal. The tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty in question, following the legal principles outlined regarding the imposition of penalties under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the order was pronounced in the open court on 21/02/2020.