9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (10) TMI 440 - AT - Income TaxPenalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Defective notice u/s 274 - non specification of charge - whether assessee has concealed the particulars of income or has furnished inaccurate particulars of income? - HELD THAT - Bare perusal of notice issued u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(c) shows that the AO has failed to specify in the show-cause notice if the assessee has concealed the particulars of income or has furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Issuance of valid notice in order to initiate the penal provisions as sine qua non for levying the penalty as this issue has been decided in the case of CIT vs. SSA s Emerald Meadows 2015 (11) TMI 1620 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT . Hon ble Apex Court in case of CIT vs. SSA s Emerald Meadows 2016 (8) TMI 1145 - SC ORDER while dismissing the SLP filed by the Revenue quashing the penalty by the Tribunal as well as Hon ble High Court on ground of unspecified notice held that notice issued by Assessing Officer under section 274 read with section 271 (1 )(c) was bad in law, as it did not specify under which limb of section 271 (1 )(c) penalty proceedings had been initiated, i.e., whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. When the assessee has disclosed all the particulars in the return of income claiming certain expenses, however found to be not allowable, it would not amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income to attract the penal provisions u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, as has been held by Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd 2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT . Also see MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY, MANJUNATH GINNING AND PRESSING, VEERABHADRAPPA SANGAPPA AND CO., V.S. LAD AND SONS, G.M. EXPORT 2013 (7) TMI 620 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT AO has miserably failed to specify in the notice issued under section 274 read with 271(l)(c) of the Act, as to whether the assessee has concealed the particulars of his income or has furnished inaccurate particulars of such income , and also merely making a claim which is not sustainable in law by itself, as in the present case, assessee s expenditure has been disallowed by the AO, would not amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the penalty order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 2. Validity of the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 3. Specification of the exact charge in the penalty notice. 4. Prima facie satisfaction of concealment or inaccuracy by the Assessing Officer. 5. Justification of disallowance of claimed expenses. 6. Applicability of judicial precedents on the penalty provisions. Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality of the Penalty Order: The appellant argued that the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirming the penalty was "bad in law and liable to be quashed." The Tribunal examined the procedural aspects and the legal basis of the penalty order, concluding that the penalty was not justified as the notice was vague. 2. Validity of the Penalty Levied: The penalty of ?12,72,560/- was levied under section 271(1)(c) for either "concealment of income" or "furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income." The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer (AO) did not specify the exact charge in the notice, leading to ambiguity. The Tribunal relied on the Karnataka High Court's decisions in CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory and CIT v. SSA’s Emerald Meadows, which were upheld by the Supreme Court, to conclude that such unspecified notices are invalid. 3. Specification of the Exact Charge: The Tribunal emphasized that the AO must clearly specify whether the penalty is for "concealment of income" or "furnishing inaccurate particulars of income." The notice issued was found to be vague as it included both charges without specifying which one applied to the assessee. This ambiguity rendered the penalty proceedings invalid. 4. Prima Facie Satisfaction of Concealment or Inaccuracy: The Tribunal observed that the AO did not arrive at a prima facie satisfaction regarding the alleged concealment or inaccuracy before levying the penalty. The Tribunal underscored the necessity of a clear and specific charge to uphold the penalty, which was absent in this case. 5. Justification of Disallowance of Claimed Expenses: The assessee claimed certain expenses which were disallowed by the AO, leading to the penalty. The Tribunal noted that merely making a claim, which is later disallowed, does not automatically amount to "furnishing inaccurate particulars." The Tribunal cited the Supreme Court's decision in Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd., which held that an incorrect claim does not constitute furnishing inaccurate particulars. 6. Applicability of Judicial Precedents: The Tribunal referred to multiple judicial precedents, including decisions by the Supreme Court and High Courts, to support its findings. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of clear and specific charges in penalty notices, as established in CIT v. SSA’s Emerald Meadows and Pr. CIT v. Sahara India Life Insurance Company Ltd. The Tribunal found that the AO's failure to specify the charge in the notice invalidated the penalty proceedings. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) was not sustainable due to the vague and ambiguous notice issued by the AO. The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed, and the penalty was quashed. The order emphasized the necessity for specificity in penalty notices and the adherence to judicial precedents to ensure fair and lawful proceedings.
|
