2016 (8) TMI 961 - HC - Income Tax

Penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) - defective notice - Held that - We find that the issue of validity of the notice wherein the AO has not struck off the irrelevant portion of the notice u/s 274 because of which the reason for levy of penalty is not evident, is covered by the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of M/s. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory 2013 (7) TMI 620 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT wherein held that the Assessing Officer proposes to invoke the first limb being concealment, then the notice has to be appropriately marked. Similar is the case for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The standard proforma without striking of the relevant clauses will lead to an inference as to non-application of mind. - Decided in favour of assessee

Summary

Issues:
- Whether the Tribunal was right in canceling the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, despite all ingredients being satisfied for penalty imposition on the assessee.

Analysis:
1. The appellants, the Revenue, raised a substantial question of law regarding the cancellation of the penalty by the Tribunal under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The contention was that the Tribunal relied on a previous decision of the High Court, which was subsequently followed in other matters pending before the Apex Court.

2. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, in its reasoning, referred to the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of M/s. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of clearly stating the grounds for penalty imposition in the notice under Section 274 to ensure the assessee's right to contest the proceedings and have a full opportunity to defend against the penalty.

3. The Tribunal highlighted that penalty proceedings should be initiated based on specific grounds mentioned in Section 271(1)(c), and the assessee must be made aware of these grounds to contest the penalty imposition effectively. It was stressed that the penalty should only be imposed on the grounds the assessee was called upon to answer, ensuring adherence to principles of natural justice.

4. The Tribunal further clarified that the Assessing Officer must differentiate between concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income when initiating penalty proceedings. The notice for penalty imposition should clearly indicate whether it is for concealment or inaccurate particulars, as these carry different legal implications as per relevant case laws.

5. In line with the previous decision of the High Court, the Tribunal deleted the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act in the present case, as the facts and circumstances were similar to the precedent case. The Tribunal concluded that until the decision is reversed, the law stands as per the established jurisprudence, and no substantial question of law remains for consideration by the Court.

6. Therefore, the Court dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that as the issue was already covered by the previous decision, no new substantial question of law arose for consideration. The Court held that unless the decision is overturned, the law remains consistent with the established legal principles outlined in the earlier judgment.