2021 (9) TMI 82 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - non specification of charge - As per CIT-A assessee has deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars of income with an intention to evade tax and consequently the levy of penalty - HELD THAT - As held in CIT v. Samson Perinchery 2017 (1) TMI 1292 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT , the order of imposition of penalty has to be made only on the ground of which the penalty proceedings has been initiated and it cannot be on a fresh ground of which the assessee has no notice - where the AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, the order imposing penalty for concealment of income was not valid. In the present case, the penalty was initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, however penalty is levied by the AO for concealment of income - CIT(Appeals) confirmed the penalty on the reason of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income - there is a defect in issue of notice and levy of penalty by the AO and confirmation of penalty by the CIT(Appeals), which invalidates the levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act.
2. Compliance with statutory requirements for initiating penalty proceedings.
3. Distinction between concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.
4. Applicability of legal precedents in penalty proceedings.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Validity of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act
The appeal challenged the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The penalty was levied on the grounds of concealing income by providing inaccurate particulars. The CIT(Appeals) upheld the penalty, stating that the assessee intentionally furnished inaccurate particulars to evade tax. The appellant contended that the penalty should be deleted due to discrepancies in the initiation and imposition of the penalty. The Tribunal observed that the AO initiated penalty proceedings for furnishing inaccurate particulars but ultimately levied penalty for concealing income. Citing legal precedents, the Tribunal emphasized that the penalty order must align with the grounds of penalty initiation, and any deviation renders the penalty invalid.

Issue 2: Compliance with statutory requirements for initiating penalty proceedings
The Tribunal highlighted the importance of the AO clearly specifying the grounds for levying penalty under section 271(1)(c) in the notice to the assessee. In this case, the AO's notice mentioned both concealing income and furnishing inaccurate particulars without specifying the exact ground for penalty imposition. Such ambiguity in the notice rendered the penalty invalid, as confirmed by legal precedents emphasizing the necessity of clarity in penalty proceedings.

Issue 3: Distinction between concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income
The Tribunal reiterated the distinction between concealing income and furnishing inaccurate particulars as per section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. Emphasizing that the penalty grounds must align with the initiation of penalty proceedings, the Tribunal held that imposing a penalty for a different ground than the one initiated is not valid. The judgment referenced legal precedents to support the requirement for strict adherence to the specified penalty grounds throughout the proceedings.

Issue 4: Applicability of legal precedents in penalty proceedings
The Tribunal relied on judgments by the Bombay High Court to support its decision regarding the validity of the penalty imposed in this case. Quoting legal precedents, the Tribunal emphasized that penalty orders must be based on the grounds specified during the initiation of penalty proceedings. Any deviation from the specified grounds in the penalty notice renders the penalty invalid, highlighting the significance of procedural compliance in penalty imposition.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, quashing the penalty order due to the defect in issuing the notice and levying the penalty. By emphasizing the necessity of aligning penalty imposition with the grounds specified in the initiation notice, the Tribunal upheld the importance of procedural clarity and statutory compliance in penalty proceedings.