2022 (2) TMI 394 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - non specification of concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of such income - Whether notice u/s 274 Read with Sec. 271 is bad and defective as it is issued without deleting the appropriate clause under which the penalty is proposed to be imposed ? - HELD THAT - On perusal of the notices issued u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act we observe that the notices were all steriotyped and the Assessing officer has not specified any limb or charge for which the notices were issued i.e., either for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of such income. It can be seen from the notices issued u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act, Assessing Officer did not strike off irrelevant limb in the notices specifying the charge for which notices were issued All the notices for issued are apparently for both the charges. We have perused the orders of the Tribunal in the case of Radhika Surgical Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT 2021 (3) TMI 42 - ITAT DELHI which is the assessee s group case and find that the Tribunal deleted the penalty on identical facts as the notices issued u/s 271(1)(c) were found to be bad in law as no charge was specified in those notices. We also observed that identical issue came up before the Hon ble Bombay High Court (full bench at Goa) case of Mr. Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh 2021 (3) TMI 608 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT . Assessee must be informed of the grounds of the penalty proceedings only through statutory notice and an omnibus notice suffers from the vice of vagueness. Penalty order passed u/s. 271(l)(c) of the Act by the Assessing Officer is bad in law and accordingly the penalty orders passed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for Assessment Years 2007-08 to 2012-13 are quashed. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act due to defective notice specifying charge.

Analysis:
1. The appellant challenged the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, arguing that the notice issued was defective as it did not specify the appropriate charge for which the penalty was proposed. The appellant contended that the penalty proceedings were initiated without specifying the exact limb of Section 271(1)(c). The appellant relied on relevant case laws to support their argument.

2. The appellant raised additional grounds of appeal before the Tribunal, claiming that the penalty order was bad in law as the penalty proceedings were initiated and levied without specifying the exact limb of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The appellant argued that the penalty notices issued did not strike off irrelevant limbs and did not specify the charge for which the notices were issued. The appellant cited various judgments to support their contention.

3. The Tribunal examined the notices issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act and found that the Assessing Officer did not specify any limb or charge for which the notices were issued. The Tribunal noted that the notices were stereotyped and failed to specify whether the penalty was for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.

4. Referring to relevant case laws and decisions, the Tribunal observed that the penalty notices issued without specifying the charge for which they were issued were found to be bad in law. The Tribunal also considered a full bench decision of the Bombay High Court (Goa) which emphasized that an assessee must be informed of the grounds of penalty proceedings only through a statutory notice, and an omnibus notice suffers from vagueness.

5. Based on the analysis of the facts and legal precedents, the Tribunal held that the penalty orders passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act were bad in law due to the defective notices that did not specify the relevant charge for which the penalties were imposed. Consequently, the Tribunal quashed the penalty orders for the assessment years in question. The Tribunal found in favor of the appellant on the additional ground raised regarding the defective penalty notices, rendering further adjudication on other grounds raised by the appellant unnecessary.

6. In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeals of the assessee, quashing the penalty orders under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for the assessment years in question. The decision was based on the principle that penalty proceedings must stand on their own and be informed through a precise statutory notice specifying the grounds, as established by relevant legal precedents and the full bench decision of the Bombay High Court (Goa).