2022 (7) TMI 78 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Manadation of specification of charge - HELD THAT - AO is under obligation to specify the appropriate limb of clause c of section 271(1)(c) of the Act at the time of initiation as well as at the time of levy of penalty notice. In this case it has been drawn our attention that while issuing the notice at two occasion AO failed to specify the charge under which the assessee is liable for penalty and therefore, without going into the merits of the case, we set-a side the order of CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the levy of penalty imposed upon the assessee, relying on the various decision cited by the co-ordinate bench while the rendering the decision in the case of Shri Roopa Nankani. In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed on legal issue. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the order passed by the Income Tax Officer under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act.
2. Legality of the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.
3. Requirement for the Assessing Officer to specify the charge under Section 271(1)(c) when issuing a penalty notice.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Order Passed by the Income Tax Officer:
The appellant contended that the order passed by the Income Tax Officer under Section 271(1)(c) dated 14/03/2017 was "bad in Law and Invalid." The scrutiny assessment completed under Section 143(3) determined a significant increase in total income, leading to the initiation of penalty proceedings for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) [CIT(A)] upheld the order, confirming 70% of the disallowances under both heads (commission expenses and job work expenses).

2. Legality of the Penalty Imposed Under Section 271(1)(c):
The assessee argued that the penalty was unwarranted because the disallowance of claims did not equate to furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealing income. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal, stating that the notices issued on 01/03/2013 and 11/01/2017 were valid and that the assessee had not provided any substantial evidence to counter the claims. The CIT(A) found that the assessee had indeed furnished inaccurate particulars of income, justifying the penalty.

3. Requirement for the Assessing Officer to Specify the Charge:
A significant legal issue raised was the failure of the Assessing Officer (AO) to specify under which limb of Section 271(1)(c) the penalty proceedings were initiated—whether for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The assessee relied on judicial precedents, including the Supreme Court's decision in CIT v SSA's Emerald Meadows and the Karnataka High Court's ruling in Commissioner of Income Tax vs Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory, which held that such omissions render the penalty notice invalid.

Findings and Conclusion:
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument regarding the non-application of mind by the AO in specifying the charge under Section 271(1)(c). Citing the Supreme Court and High Court decisions, the Tribunal noted that the AO's failure to strike off the inappropriate words in the penalty notice made it unclear whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. This procedural lapse rendered the penalty proceedings invalid.

Outcome:
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and directed the AO to cancel the penalty imposed. The appeal of the assessee was allowed on the legal issue of the invalidity of the penalty notice due to the AO's failure to specify the charge.

Order Pronounced:
The appeal was allowed, and the order was pronounced in open court on 25th May, 2022.