9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (5) TMI 588 - AT - Income TaxPenalty u/s.271(1)(c) - Defective notice - addition towards loss on sale of car - case of the assessee is that the AO did not strike off the irrelevant limb in the notice issued u/s.274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) - HELD THAT - It is clear that where the charge is not properly set out in the notice u/s 274 viz., both the limbs stand therein without striking off of the inapplicable limb, but the penalty has, in fact, been levied for one of the two, such a penalty order gets vitiated. See MR. MOHD. FARHAN A. SHAIKH 2021 (3) TMI 608 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT and GOLDEN PEACE HOTELS AND RESORTS PVT. LTD. 2020 (2) TMI 333 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT Turning to the facts of the extant cases, we find from the notices u/s 274 of the Act that the AO did not strike out the irrelevant limb there from - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues:
1. Confirmation of penalty under section 271(1)(c) for the assessment year 2009-10. 2. Confirmation of penalty under section 271(1)(c) for the assessment year 2011-12. 3. Validity of penalty imposition without specifying the charge in the notice u/s 274. Confirmation of Penalty for AY 2009-10: The assessment order for the AY 2009-10 made an addition towards loss on the sale of a car, which was not allowed by the Assessing Officer (AO). Subsequently, a penalty was imposed under section 271(1)(c) with reference to this addition. The penalty was affirmed in the first appeal, leading to the assessee's appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee contended that the AO did not mention any specific charge for initiating the penalty. The Tribunal admitted additional grounds raised by the assessee, citing a Supreme Court ruling that allows raising new legal questions if they impact the tax liability. The Tribunal noted that the penalty was imposed for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, not concealed income, as indicated in the notice u/s 274. Citing relevant case law, the Tribunal held that the penalty order was vitiated due to the incorrect charge mentioned in the notice, ultimately directing the deletion of the penalty for the AY 2009-10. Confirmation of Penalty for AY 2011-12: For the AY 2011-12, the AO made an addition to the assessee's claimed exempt agricultural income, leading to the imposition of a penalty under section 271(1)(c). The penalty was upheld in the first appeal, prompting the assessee to appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal examined the notice u/s 274 and noted that the penalty was imposed for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, not for the reasons mentioned in the notice. Referring to recent judgments, including a Full Bench decision of the Bombay High Court, the Tribunal emphasized that the failure to strike off irrelevant limbs in the notice vitiates the penalty order. Following the legal precedent, the Tribunal overturned the impugned orders and directed the deletion of the penalty for the AY 2011-12. Validity of Penalty Imposition without Specifying Charge: The crux of the issue revolved around the AO's failure to strike off irrelevant limbs in the notice u/s 274, leading to penalties imposed under section 271(1)(c) for inaccurate particulars of income. Citing relevant judgments, the Tribunal held that such a defect in the notice vitiates the penalty order, even if the AO had recorded satisfaction for imposing the penalty in the assessment order u/s 143(3). Relying on the legal position established by the Bombay High Court and the Supreme Court's dismissal of an SLP against a similar judgment, the Tribunal concluded that penalties imposed without specifying the correct charge in the notice are invalid. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeals and directed the deletion of penalties for both assessment years. ---
|
