2025 (1) TMI 907 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 270A(9) - non specification of clear charge/instance - allegation of non-mentioning of the specific instance of misreported income in the show cause notice or in the assessment order - HELD THAT - The Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Schneider Electric South Asia (HQ) PTE. Ltd. Vs. ACIT, International Taxation, Circle-3 (1)(2), New Delhi and ors . 2022 (3) TMI 1295 - DELHI HIGH COURT held that, there is not even a whisper as to which limb of Section 270A of the Act is attracted and how the ingredient of subsection (9) of Section 270A is satisfied. In the absence of such particulars, the mere reference to the word misreporting by the Respondents in the assessment order to deny immunity from imposition of penalty and prosecution makes the impugned order manifestly arbitrary. Thus we delete the levy of penalty u/s 270A(9)(a) - Decided in favour of assessee.

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered in this judgment are:

Whether the non-mentioning of specific instances of misreporting under Section 270A(9) in the show cause notice or assessment order invalidates the penalty order.
Whether the Assessee's disclosure of income post-search and seizure constitutes misreporting or under-reporting justifying the imposition of a penalty under Section 270A(9)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Non-Mentioning of Specific Instances of Misreporting

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The legal framework revolves around Section 270A(9) of the Income Tax Act, which deals with penalties for misreporting or under-reporting of income. The relevant precedents include the Delhi High Court's decision in Schneider Electric South Asia (HQ) PTE. Ltd. vs. ACIT.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court emphasized the necessity for clarity in penalty notices, stating that the absence of specifics regarding the limb of Section 270A(9) being invoked renders the penalty order arbitrary and invalid.
Key Evidence and Findings: The court found that neither the assessment order nor the show cause notices specified which sub-clauses of Section 270A(9) were applicable, thus failing to provide the Assessee with adequate information to defend against the penalty.
Application of Law to Facts: By applying the principles from the Schneider Electric case, the court concluded that the penalty orders were invalid due to the lack of specific allegations of misreporting.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Assessee argued that the lack of specificity in the penalty notice violated procedural fairness. The Revenue contended that the disclosure was a result of the search and justified the penalty. The court sided with the Assessee, emphasizing procedural requirements.
Conclusions: The court concluded that the penalty orders were invalid and must be set aside due to the procedural deficiency in the notices.

Issue 2: Misreporting or Under-Reporting of Income

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 270A(9)(a) of the Income Tax Act addresses penalties for misreporting income. The court considered precedents that require clear evidence of misreporting for penalties to be justified.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court interpreted that the Assessee's voluntary disclosure post-search did not automatically constitute misreporting, particularly in the absence of specific findings in the assessment order.
Key Evidence and Findings: The court noted that the Assessee's income disclosures were accepted in the assessment order without adverse findings, undermining the basis for a penalty.
Application of Law to Facts: The court applied the legal principles to determine that the mere fact of disclosure post-search did not equate to misreporting, especially without explicit findings in the assessment order.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Assessee argued that the penalty was unjustified given the acceptance of disclosed income. The Revenue's argument focused on the disclosure being a result of the search. The court favored the Assessee's position.
Conclusions: The court concluded that the penalties under Section 270A(9)(a) were unjustified and should be deleted.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning: "There is not even a whisper as to which limb of Section 270A of the Act is attracted and how the ingredient of subsection (9) of Section 270A is satisfied."
Core Principles Established: The judgment reinforces the principle that penalty notices must clearly specify the basis for penalties, including the specific provisions and instances of misreporting, to be valid.
Final Determinations on Each Issue: The court determined that the penalty orders were invalid due to procedural deficiencies and that the Assessee's disclosures did not constitute misreporting, leading to the deletion of penalties for the relevant assessment years.

In summary, the court allowed the Assessee's appeals, setting aside the penalty orders on the grounds of procedural deficiencies and lack of evidence of misreporting, reinforcing the importance of specificity in penalty notices under the Income Tax Act.

← Previous Next →