2021 (9) TMI 79 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Defective notice u/s 274 - As argued AO did not strike off the irrelevant portion of the notice for levy of penalty - non-striking off of irrelevant portion in the notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) - HELD THAT - For validity of notice u/s 274 r.w.s 271 (1)(c) for non-striking off of the irrelevant portion of the notice AO has struck of paras 2 3 of the notice which are irrelevant to the issue and since according to the Assessing Officer, the assessee concealed the income and also furnished inaccurate particulars of income, he did not strike off any portion of such para. Therefore, the said ground of appeal No.2 of the assessee is not sustainable. It is accordingly dismissed. Outstanding statutory liabilities - Assessee has not offered the interest income to tax - penalty on such addition is sustainable - with regard to the disallowance on which the penalty is levied, we find some strength in the argument of the assessee that these are pertaining to the earlier A.Ys. When they did not pertain to the relevant A.Y, the penalty on such disallowance is not sustainable - we direct the AO to verify the statutory liabilities which pertain to the earlier years and on such items, no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act shall be levied. Assessee s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) for A.Y 2015-16 due to delay in filing, condonation of delay sought. Merits: Disallowance of statutory liabilities and interest income, initiation of penalty proceedings, validity of notice u/s 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c), grounds of appeal before Tribunal, submissions by assessee, details of payments made, justification by Assessing Officer, concealment of income, furnishing inaccurate particulars, sustenance of penalty.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Delay in Filing and Condonation:
The appeal was filed with a delay of 16 days, and the assessee provided reasons for the delay, citing health issues as a cause. The Tribunal, after hearing the DR, condoned the delay, considering the reasonable cause presented by the assessee.

2. Merits of the Case - Disallowance of Statutory Liabilities and Interest Income:
The Assessing Officer observed outstanding statutory liabilities and interest income not considered in the computation of income. The AO added these amounts to the income of the assessee, leading to penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c). The assessee contended that certain liabilities were from earlier years and should not be disallowed in the relevant assessment year. The Tribunal agreed, directing the AO not to levy a penalty on such disallowances pertaining to earlier years.

3. Initiation of Penalty Proceedings and Validity of Notice:
The AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) based on non-disclosure of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars. The assessee challenged the validity of the notice, arguing that the irrelevant portion was not struck off. However, the Tribunal found that the relevant portions were addressed, and the penalty was justified based on non-disclosure of interest income.

4. Grounds of Appeal and Submissions by Assessee:
The assessee raised multiple grounds of appeal before the Tribunal, challenging the validity of penalty initiation and the disallowance of statutory liabilities. The counsel for the assessee argued that the penalty should not have been levied as the explanation provided was not found incorrect.

5. Details of Payments Made and Justification by Assessing Officer:
During the hearing, the assessee submitted details of payments made towards the disallowed statutory liabilities. The Assessing Officer justified the penalty on the grounds of concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars, emphasizing non-disclosure of interest income.

6. Final Decision:
The Tribunal partially allowed the assessee's appeal for statistical purposes, directing the AO not to levy a penalty on disallowances related to statutory liabilities from earlier years. The penalty on interest income non-disclosure was upheld, considering it a case of concealment of income.

By analyzing the issues involved in the judgment, the Tribunal provided a detailed assessment of each aspect, ultimately resulting in a partial allowance of the appeal based on the merits and validity of penalty proceedings.