2022 (7) TMI 396 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Defective notice u/s 274 - Assessee argued AO 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 - As in. Mohd. Farhan. A. Shaikh 2021 (3) TMI 608 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT has dealt on this disputed issue of not striking off charge in the penalty notice would vitiate the penalty proceedings. A.O has not has not strike off the charge for levy of penalty for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) and quash the penalty notice. And allow the grounds of appeal in favour of the assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Appeals against penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Analysis:
1. The appeals were filed against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) related to penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) and 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appeals were clubbed together as the issues were identical. The lead case was ITA No. 2445/Mum/2021 for the Assessment Year 2009-10. The appellant challenged the penalty of Rs.2,03,650 levied under section 271(1)(c) on various grounds.

2. The brief facts revealed that the assessee, engaged in trading, filed the return of income for AY 2009-10, which was processed u/s 143(1). The Assessing Officer received information indicating accommodation entries obtained by the assessee. Subsequently, a notice u/s 148 was issued, leading to an assessment order u/s 143(3) estimating income based on bogus purchases. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) were initiated, and the CIT(A) reduced the estimated income percentage, but the penalty was upheld by the AO.

3. The main contention was the legal issue of non-specification of the exact charge in the penalty notice, whether for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The High Court's decision highlighted that failure to strike off irrelevant matters in the notice could vitiate penalty proceedings. The Tribunal, considering this, set aside the CIT(A)'s order and quashed the penalty notice, allowing the appeal in favor of the assessee.

4. The Tribunal's decision in the lead case applied mutatis mutandis to similar appeals (ITA No. 2439, 2444, & 2443/Mum/2021), resulting in the allowance of all four appeals against the penalty. The judgment emphasized the importance of specifying the grounds for penalty clearly in the notice to ensure the validity of penalty proceedings.

5. In conclusion, the Tribunal's detailed analysis focused on the legal aspect of penalty imposition under section 271(1)(c) and the necessity of a clear charge specification in the penalty notice. The judgment highlighted the significance of adhering to procedural requirements to maintain the validity of penalty proceedings under the Income Tax Act, ultimately leading to the allowance of the appeals filed by the assessee.