2020 (12) TMI 812 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - defective notice - non specification of charge - SC does not specify the fault/charge on which he proposed to levy penalty against the assessee u/s. 271(1)(c) - Held that - As decided in JEETMAL CHORARIA 2017 (12) TMI 883 - ITAT, KOLKATA show cause notice issued in the present case u/s 274 of the Act does not specify the charge against the assessee as to whether it is for concealing particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The show cause notice u/s 274 of the Act does not strike out the inappropriate words. In these circumstances, we are of the view that imposition of penalty cannot be sustained. We therefore hold that imposition of penalty in the present case cannot be sustained and the same is directed to be cancelled. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 based on defective show cause notice.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the penalty imposed by the AO under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which was confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). The counsel for the assessee highlighted that the show cause notice did not specify the fault for which the penalty was proposed. The AO did not strike down the irrelevant portion of the fault/charge, leading to ambiguity. The counsel referred to various legal precedents, including decisions from the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court and the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, emphasizing the importance of specifying the charge in the notice. The counsel argued that the penalty imposed based on a defective notice should be cancelled.

The Ld. DR opposed the submission, citing case laws to support the department's stance. The Tribunal referred to a decision regarding the recording of satisfaction by the AO and the specific charge in the show cause notice. The Tribunal discussed various decisions from Mumbai ITAT and the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, emphasizing the administrative nature of the notice and the requirement for the assessee to be informed of the charges. The Tribunal noted conflicting views from different jurisdictions but ultimately decided to follow the view of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court.

Based on the analysis and considering the precedents, the Tribunal held that the imposition of penalty based on a show cause notice that did not specify the charge was not sustainable. Relying on the earlier decision of the coordinate bench, the Tribunal deleted the penalty imposed and allowed the appeal of the assessee.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found that the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was not valid due to the defective show cause notice. The Tribunal followed the legal position favoring the assessee and cancelled the penalty, as directed by the earlier decision of the coordinate bench. The appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the penalty was deleted.