2020 (8) TMI 177 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s. 271AAA - difference in the assessed income and returned on account - CIT(A) restricted the penalty being the addition finally sustained by him on account of valuation of the three ladies watches - HELD THAT - We find that the order of the CIT(A) giving relief to the assessee on various addition except the addition on account of watches has attained finality in view of the dismissal of the appeal filed by the revenue in the quantum appeal. Therefore, the penalty deleted by the CIT(A) on account of the various additions made by the AO in the assessment order does not call for any interference and accordingly the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed. Defective notice - notice issued u/s. 274 r.w.s 271 AAA shows that such notice does not mention the particular limb of explanation to section 271AAA defining undisclosed income for which penalty is proposed to be levied. Rather such notice reproduces the language under the scope of section 271 (1) (c) and not section 271AAA. Therefore, such notice in our opinion is vague and has to be treated as invalid. Since this notice clearly shows the non application of mind on the part of the AO and there is no specific ground on which penalty proceeding is initiated, therefore, following the decisions in the case of CIT Vs. Manjunath Cotton and Ginning Factory 2013 (7) TMI 620 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT and SSA s Emerald Meadows 2016 (8) TMI 1145 - SC ORDER the penalty notice issued u/s. 274 r.w.s 271 AAA is bad in law and, therefore, is invalid. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of penalty proceedings initiated under Section 271 AAA.
2. Imposition of penalty on various additions made by the AO.
3. Reduction of penalty by CIT(A) and its subsequent challenge.
4. Specificity and clarity of the penalty notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271 AAA.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Penalty Proceedings Initiated Under Section 271 AAA:

The assessee argued that the penalty notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271 AAA was vague and invalid as it did not specify the particular limb of the explanation defining "undisclosed income." The notice was in a printed format without striking off the inappropriate words, showing non-application of mind by the AO. The Tribunal referred to the decisions of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in CIT Vs. Manjunath Cotton and Ginning Factory and CIT Vs. SSA’s Emerald Meadows, which quashed penalty proceedings due to similar defects in the notice. Consequently, the Tribunal held the penalty notice to be invalid and quashed the penalty proceedings initiated by the AO under Section 274 read with Section 271 AAA.

2. Imposition of Penalty on Various Additions Made by the AO:

The AO had levied a penalty of ?15,84,210/- under Section 271 AAA based on several additions, including notional interest on HSBC bank balance, promissory notes, undisclosed investments in jewelry, expenditure on watches, undisclosed cash, and investment in silver. The CIT(A) reduced the penalty to ?1,05,230/- after giving relief on most additions except for the valuation of three ladies' watches.

3. Reduction of Penalty by CIT(A) and Its Subsequent Challenge:

The CIT(A) restricted the penalty to ?1,05,230/- based on the addition related to the valuation of three ladies' watches. The Tribunal noted that most additions made by the AO were deleted in the quantum appeal, except for the notional interest on HSBC bank account and partial addition on watches. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the penalty on other additions, as the quantum appeal had already attained finality.

4. Specificity and Clarity of the Penalty Notice Issued Under Section 274 Read with Section 271 AAA:

The Tribunal emphasized the importance of a clear and specific penalty notice. The notice issued was found to be vague as it did not mention the specific limb of the explanation to Section 271 AAA. It reproduced the language under Section 271 (1)(c), which was not applicable. The Tribunal concluded that such a notice is invalid due to the lack of specificity and non-application of mind by the AO. Therefore, the penalty proceedings were quashed, and the penalty levied by the AO and upheld by the CIT(A) was directed to be canceled.

Conclusion:

The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed, quashing the penalty proceedings initiated under Section 274 read with Section 271 AAA due to the invalidity of the penalty notice. The appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the penalty on various additions. The Tribunal did not adjudicate the grounds on merit, deeming them academic in nature after quashing the penalty proceedings on legal grounds.

← Previous Next →