2021 (9) TMI 1225 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271(1 )(c) - disallowance of depreciation - defective notice u/s 274 - bonafide mistake on part of the assessee - Whether the appellant company has not concealed the income or furnished inaccurate particulars of Income? - HELD THAT - Assessing Officer was not sure under which limb of provisions of Section 271 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the assessee is liable for penalty. Besides that the Assessment Order also did not specify the charge as to whether there is concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income in assessee s case. Besides this, the present case is relating to wrong claim of depreciation which was a bonafide mistake on part of the assessee for which it cannot be said that it is concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particular of income. This issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in case of M/s SSA Emerald Meadow. 2016 (8) TMI 1145 - SC ORDER . As the inappropriate words in the penalty notice has not been struck off and the notice does not specify as to under which limb of the provisions, the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) has been initiated, therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) is not sustainable and has to be deleted. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Penalty order under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 based on disallowance of depreciation without specific charges for concealment or inaccurate particulars.

Detailed Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the penalty order imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, due to disallowance of depreciation without clear charges for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The appellant argued that the penalty was unjust as there was no specific charge mentioned in the notice or order. The appellant contended that the penalty provision being quasi-judicial required a specific charge for penalty imposition. The appellant cited relevant case laws to support the argument, emphasizing the necessity of a clear charge for penalty under section 271(1)(c). The appellant also highlighted that the tax audit report did not raise any concerns regarding the depreciation claim, indicating a genuine mistake rather than intentional concealment.

The Departmental Representative (DR) argued that the penalty order clearly indicated concealment of income, and the lack of specific mention of the charge did not invalidate the penalty. The DR relied on the assessment order, penalty order, and the CIT(A) decision to support this argument.

Upon careful consideration of the arguments and relevant materials, the Tribunal noted that the notice and assessment order did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment or inaccurate particulars. The case revolved around a genuine mistake in claiming depreciation, which did not amount to concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal referenced a Supreme Court decision and a Karnataka High Court decision to support the conclusion that a penalty notice must specify the charge under section 271(1)(c) for validity. The Tribunal also highlighted that the inappropriate words in the penalty notice were not struck off, further indicating the lack of clarity regarding the penalty charge.

Based on the analysis and legal precedents, the Tribunal concluded that the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) was not sustainable due to the absence of a clear charge for concealment or inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal cited the decisions of the Karnataka High Court and the Delhi High Court to support the decision to cancel the penalty. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A) order and directed the Assessing Officer to cancel the penalty levied.

In the final verdict, the appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the Tribunal pronounced the order on September 28, 2021, canceling the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.