2021 (12) TMI 638 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Argument on defective notice - non strike off any of the twin limbs of the penalty - HELD THAT - As penalty notice obviously the ld AO has not cancelled any of twin limbs on which penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act can be levied. The above issue is squarely covered by the decision of Sahara India Life Insurance Corporation 2019 (8) TMI 409 - DELHI HIGH COURT wherein, held that in notice issued by the ld AO would be bad in law if it did not specify which limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act the penalty proceedings had been initiated i.e. whether for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. As the above decision covers the issue in favour of the assessee, we reverse the orders of the lower authorities and hold that penalty order issued by the ld AO based on such invalid notice is not sustainable in law - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Penalty under section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the penalty order passed by the ld CIT(A) confirming the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The assessee raised multiple grounds of appeal challenging the penalty imposition. The first ground contended that the penalty order was arbitrary and lacked a basis. The second ground argued that the penalty was unjustified as it was initiated for one default but levied for another. The third ground highlighted the vagueness of the penalty notice, stating it did not specify the precise default. The fourth ground criticized the penalty on estimated additions, ignoring the subjective nature of income estimation. The fifth ground challenged the calculation method used for determining the penalty amount. The appellant also sought permission to modify the grounds of appeal.

The facts of the case revealed that the assessee, a real estate company, had undergone a search under section 132, following which the income tax return was filed. The assessment resulted in a disturbance in the computation of capital gain, leading to penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The subsequent appeal against the assessment order resulted in relief granted to the assessee, reducing the balance sum subject to penalty.

The penalty notice was issued, and the assessee contended that since the addition was based on estimation, the penalty could not be levied. However, the ld AO rejected this argument, asserting that inaccurate particulars were furnished, leading to the penalty imposition. The penalty order was challenged before the ld CIT(A), who upheld it, prompting the appeal before the ITAT.

During the appeal hearing, the first contention raised was regarding the invalidity of the penalty notice, as the ld AO had not specified the basis for the penalty imposition. Citing a decision by the Delhi High Court, it was held that a penalty notice must specify the grounds under section 271(1)(c) for it to be valid. As the penalty notice in this case failed to meet this requirement, the penalty order was deemed unsustainable in law. Consequently, the ITAT allowed the appeal on this ground without delving into the merits of the case.

In conclusion, the ITAT allowed the appeal of the assessee based on the invalidity of the penalty notice, as it did not specify the grounds for penalty imposition under section 271(1)(c) as required by law. The decision highlighted the importance of a valid and specific penalty notice in upholding penalty orders.