9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (4) TMI 85 - AT - Income TaxPenalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Validity of notice u/s 274 - validity of Notice issued u/s 274 of the Act, without specifying particular limb of penalty leviable u/s 271(1)(c)of the Act - HELD THAT - The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Manjunatha Cotton Ginning Factory, 2013 (7) TMI 620 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT observed that the levy of penalty has to be clear as to the limb under which it is being levied. As per Hon'ble High Court, where the AO proposed to invoke first limb being concealment, then the notice has to be appropriately marked. The Hon'ble High Court also held that the standard proforma of notice u/s 274 of the Act without striking of the irrelevant clause would lead to an inference of non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer and levy of penalty would suffers from non-application of mind. It is imperative for the AO to specify the relevant limb so as to make the Assessee aware as to what is the charge made against him so that he can respond accordingly - we have no hesitation to delete the penalty levied by the AO and affirmed by the Ld. Commissioner. Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed.
Issues:
1. Validity of Notice issued u/s 274 of the Act without specifying the particular limb of penalty leviable u/s 271(1)(c) 2. Imposition of penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income Issue 1: Validity of Notice issued u/s 274 of the Act without specifying the particular limb of penalty leviable u/s 271(1)(c): The appeal was filed against the penalty order imposed on the Assessee for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Assessee challenged the imposition of penalty based on the validity of the notice issued under section 274 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which did not specify the particular limb of penalty under section 271(1)(c) for which the penalty proceedings were initiated. The Hon'ble Apex Court and various High Courts have emphasized the importance of clearly specifying the limb under which the penalty is being levied to ensure the Assessee is aware of the charges against them. The notice issued without specifying the relevant limb of penalty was considered bad in law as it indicated a lack of application of mind by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal and Courts have consistently held that such notices are invalid and cannot be considered sufficient to impose a penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Issue 2: Imposition of penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income: The Assessing Officer had initiated penalty proceedings against the Assessee for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income based on the addition of Rs. 35,00,000 on account of bogus share capital. The penalty was imposed at 100% of the tax sought to be evaded. The first appeal affirmed the penalty order stating that the Assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the share capital during the assessment, appellate, and penalty proceedings. However, the Assessee contended that the penalty notice did not specify the particular limb of penalty, raising concerns about the validity of the penalty imposition. After detailed analysis, the Tribunal concluded that due to the invalid notice issued by the Assessing Officer without specifying the relevant limb of penalty, the penalty imposed for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income was not sustainable. Therefore, the penalty was deleted, and the appeal filed by the Assessee was allowed. In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision primarily focused on the validity of the notice issued under section 274 of the Act and the implications of not specifying the particular limb of penalty under section 271(1)(c). The judgment highlighted the necessity of clear communication in penalty proceedings to ensure fairness and adherence to legal requirements.
|
