2022 (1) TMI 83 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - defective notice u/s 274 - HELD THAT - We find that the notice in this also is an omnibus show-cause notice as it does not strike off/delete the inappropriate/irrelevant/not applicable portion. Such a generic notice betrays a non-application of mind. Hence, the penalty levied pursuant to such a notice is not legally sustainable in law. Hence following case of MOHD. FARHAN A. SHAIKH 2021 (3) TMI 608 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT we hold that the Assessing Officer was bereft of valid jurisdiction as the notice issued to assessee is unsustainable in law. As regards, the merit of issues in penalty, we find that a very small amount of addition has been finally sustained by ITAT on an estimate basis. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that huge additions are there. On the facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that assessee cannot be visited with the rigors of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c). Hence, the penalty is liable to be deleted on merits also. Assessee appeal allowed.

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the penalty proceedings initiated under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act.
2. Validity of the notice issued for penalty proceedings.
3. Merits of the penalty imposed based on the sustained addition.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Penalty Proceedings Initiated Under Section 271(1)(c):
The case revolves around the penalty proceedings initiated under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for alleged bogus purchases. The Assessing Officer (AO) levied a penalty amounting to ?21,07,721/- based on an addition of ?68,21,102/- confirmed by the CIT(A). The ITAT, however, granted relief to the assessee, reducing the sustained addition to ?1,70,922/-. The CIT(A) confirmed the penalty to this extent, citing precedents from the Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Courts, emphasizing that the assessee had "consciously concealed the particulars of his income."

2. Validity of the Notice Issued for Penalty Proceedings:
A significant issue raised by the assessee was the validity of the notice issued for penalty proceedings. The assessee argued that the AO erred in not specifying whether the penalty was for "concealment of income" or "furnishing inaccurate particulars of income," making the penalty void ab initio. This argument was admitted based on the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in NTPC Ltd. Vs. CIT [229 ITR 383]. The ITAT referred to the Full Bench decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Farhan A. Shaikh Vs. PCIT, which emphasized that an omnibus notice without striking off irrelevant portions is vague and betrays non-application of mind. The ITAT concluded that such a notice is legally unsustainable, rendering the penalty proceedings invalid.

3. Merits of the Penalty Imposed Based on the Sustained Addition:
On the merits, the ITAT noted that the final sustained addition was a very small amount of ?1,70,922/- on an estimate basis. The CIT(A) had erroneously held that huge additions were involved. Given the circumstances, the ITAT opined that the assessee could not be subjected to the rigors of penalty under Section 271(1)(c). Therefore, the penalty was liable to be deleted on merits as well.

Conclusion:
The ITAT allowed the assessee's appeals, holding that the penalty proceedings were invalid due to the defective notice and that the penalty was not justified on the merits of the case. The judgment underscores the importance of clear and specific notices in penalty proceedings and reinforces the principle that penalties should not be imposed without proper justification and adherence to procedural requirements.

← Previous Next →