9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (5) TMI 1380 - AT - Income TaxPenalty 271(1)(c) - defect in notice u/s 274 - As argued A.O. has not applied his mind and non striking of charge in the penalty notice i.e. whether the charge is for concealment of income or furnishing of in accurate particulars of income - HELD THAT - We find the Jurisdictional Honble High Court of Bombay in Mohd Farhan A Shaikh 2021 (3) TMI 608 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT as dealt on this disputed issue of not striking off charge in the penalty notice would vitiate the penalty proceedings. CIT(A) has deleted the penalty as the A.O has not strike off the charge for levy of penalty for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. DR could not controvert the findings of the CIT(A) with any new cogent material evidence or information to take a different view. Accordingly we do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A), who has considered the facts, provisions of law and passed a reasoned and speaking order and uphold the same and dismiss the grounds of appeal of the Revenue.
Issues:
1. Deletion of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. 2. Validity of notice issued for levy of penalty. Analysis: 1. The Revenue filed an appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) concerning the deletion of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The Revenue contended that the assessee deliberately concealed income, questioning the correctness of the deletion by the Ld. CIT(A). The case involved disputed additions to the total income, including bogus purchases and lease rent, leading to scrutiny assessments and subsequent penalty proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer. The CIT(A) and the Tribunal had differing opinions on the additions, ultimately resulting in the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) by the Assessing Officer. 2. The crux of the issue revolved around the validity of the notice issued for the levy of penalty. The Assessing Officer had imposed penalties for both concealing income and furnishing inaccurate particulars in separate orders. However, in the subsequent penalty order, the Assessing Officer did not specify the nature of the penalty charge clearly. The CIT(A) took into consideration the legal issue of the validity of the notice, emphasizing the importance of specifying the grounds for penalty initiation. The CIT(A) referred to judicial decisions and the jurisdictional High Court's ruling, highlighting the necessity for a clear charge in the penalty notice. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing that an omnibus notice lacking specificity would render the penalty proceedings vague and invalid. 3. The Tribunal, after considering the facts, circumstances, and the High Court's decision, concluded that the CIT(A) correctly deleted the penalty due to the Assessing Officer's failure to specify the charge for penalty initiation. The Tribunal found no new evidence presented by the Revenue to challenge the CIT(A)'s findings, thereby upholding the decision to dismiss the Revenue's appeal. The judgment highlighted the need for strict construction of penal provisions and the requirement for clarity in penalty notices to ensure fairness to the assessee. In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the penalty under section 271(1)(c) based on the Assessing Officer's failure to specify the nature of the penalty charge in the notice. The judgment emphasized the importance of clear and specific penalty notices to maintain the integrity and fairness of penalty proceedings.
|
