2016 (9) TMI 796 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) - Held that - Notices were issued on a printed proforma in which the AO did not identify, whether the assessee has concealed particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. As undisputedly the AO has not identified in the notices as to whether the penalty proceedings are initiated for concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of such income. Therefore we are of the considered view that on account of defective notice issued for initiation of penalty proceedings, the penalty order passed by the AO is not sustainable in the eyes of law. We accordingly set aside the order of the CIT(Appeals) as well as the Assessing Officer and delete the penalty on account of wrong initiation of penalty proceedings. - Decided in favour of assessee

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis:
The appeals were filed against the orders confirming the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for the assessment year 2006-07. An additional ground challenging the initiation of penalty proceedings was raised by the assessee during the hearing. The main contention was that the notice issued by the Assessing Officer did not specify whether it was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Tribunal admitted the additional ground as it was crucial to the case and heard arguments from both parties.

The assessee argued that the initiation of penalty proceedings was not in accordance with the law as the notice did not clearly mention the grounds for penalty under section 271(1)(c). The counsel relied on various judgments, including those of the High Courts and the Tribunal, emphasizing the importance of specifying the grounds in the notice to give the assessee a fair opportunity to contest the penalty.

On the other hand, the Department argued that the failure to strike off a particular column in the notice should not invalidate the penalty proceedings. However, the Tribunal, after examining the notices issued by the Assessing Officer, found that they did not identify whether the penalty was being initiated for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Citing the judgments of the High Courts and the Tribunal, the Tribunal held that such defective notices rendered the penalty order unsustainable in the eyes of the law.

Based on the precedents and the lack of clarity in the initiation of penalty proceedings, the Tribunal set aside the penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer and the CIT(Appeals). Consequently, the penalty was deleted due to the incorrect initiation of penalty proceedings. As a result, the Tribunal allowed the appeals of the assessee, and since the penalty proceedings were quashed, there was no need to address the merits of the case.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision highlighted the significance of clearly specifying the grounds for penalty in the notice under section 271(1)(c) to ensure fairness and compliance with the principles of natural justice. The judgment emphasized that the initiation of penalty proceedings must be based on proper grounds to maintain the validity of the penalty order.