9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (2) TMI 1090 - AT - Income TaxPenalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Non mentioning of specific default - defective notice u/s 274 - HELD THAT - Failure on the part of the A.O to clearly put the assessee to notice as regards the default for which penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was sought to be imposed on it, i.e, neither by making a specific mention of the same at the time of initiating the penalty proceedings in the body of the assessment order, nor by striking off the irrelevant default in the SCN , dated 19.02.2014, had undoubtedly left the assessee guessing of the default for which it was being proceeded against. Accordingly, in the backdrop of our aforesaid observations, we are of a strong conviction that as the A.O had clearly failed to discharge his statutory obligation of fairly putting the assessee to notice as regards the default for which it was being proceeded against, therefore, the penalty under Sec. 271(1)(c) imposed by him in clear violation of the mandate of Sec. 274(1) of the Act cannot be sustained. We, thus, for the aforesaid reasons not being able to persuade ourselves to subscribe to the imposition of penalty by the A.O, therefore, set-aside the order of the CIT(A) who had upheld the same. Resultantly, the penalty imposed by the A.O under Sec.271(1)(c) is quashed in terms of our aforesaid observations. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the order under appeal was barred by time as per proviso to section 275(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Whether the penalty proceedings initiated by the A.O were valid given the lack of specification of the charge. 3. Whether the penalty imposed was justified based on the grounds and explanations provided by the assessee. 4. General contention that the impugned order is against law and facts of the case. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Timeliness of the Order under Section 275(1)(a): The assessee contended that the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] erred in holding that the order under appeal was not barred by time as per the proviso to section 275(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. This issue, however, was not the primary focus of the Tribunal's detailed analysis. 2. Validity of Penalty Proceedings Due to Lack of Specification: The assessee argued that the Assessing Officer (A.O) failed to specify the exact charge in the penalty proceedings, whether it was for "concealment of income" or "furnishing inaccurate particulars of income." The Tribunal noted that the A.O had initiated penalty proceedings in a vague manner, both in the body of the assessment order and in the Show Cause Notice (SCN) issued under section 274 read with section 271 of the Act. The SCN did not clearly indicate the specific default, as both options were ticked. This lack of clarity was seen as a failure to provide the assessee with a fair opportunity to defend itself, thus invalidating the penalty proceedings. The Tribunal emphasized that specifying the exact charge is a statutory obligation and not merely an idle formality, citing judicial precedents that underscore the necessity of clear communication of the specific default to the assessee. 3. Justification of the Penalty Imposed: The Tribunal did not delve into the merits of whether the penalty was justified based on the grounds and explanations provided by the assessee. Since the penalty was quashed due to the procedural lapse of not specifying the charge, the Tribunal refrained from addressing this issue in detail, leaving it open for consideration only if necessary. 4. General Contention Against the Impugned Order: The assessee's general contention that the impugned order was against law and facts was implicitly addressed through the Tribunal's detailed analysis of the procedural lapses in the penalty proceedings. The Tribunal's decision to quash the penalty reinforced the view that the order did not adhere to the legal requirements. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, quashing the penalty of ?6,00,284/- imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, due to the A.O's failure to clearly specify the charge in the SCN and the assessment order. This procedural lapse was deemed a violation of the statutory obligation to provide a fair opportunity of being heard, rendering the penalty proceedings invalid. Other issues raised by the assessee were left open and not adjudicated upon, given the primary ground on which the penalty was quashed.
|
