9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (3) TMI 1330 - AT - Income TaxLevy of penalty u/s 271 (1) (c) - non mentioning charges for levy of penalty - Held that - A perusal of the satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer at the time of assessment and while passing penalty order for both the assessment years makes it evident that the Assessing Officer is not sure about the charge for levy of penalty. In the notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s 271 (1) (c ) of the Act again the Assessing Officer has erred in mentioning both the charges for levy of penalty. It would be relevant to mention here that in the notice both the charges i.e concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income are linked by conjunction or . Thus the notice does not clearly specify the charge for levy of penalty. On merits the ld. AR has pointed that similar additions were made in assessment year 2009-10 and penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1)(c) were initiated. However the penalty proceedings were subsequently dropped. This fact has not been controverted by the ld. DR. The assessee has also furnished copy of the order dated 31.03.2014 passed u/s 271 (1) (c) of the Act for assessment year 2009-10 dropping penalty proceedings. Under such circumstances it would not be logical to uphold the penalty in assessment year under appeal. - Decided n favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Years 2007-08 and 2008-09. 2. Validity of notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Levy of Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for Assessment Years 2007-08 and 2008-09: The assessee, a Co-operative Bank, filed its return of income for AY 2007-08 and AY 2008-09. During scrutiny assessments, the Assessing Officer (AO) made several additions to the income, leading to the initiation of penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) for both years. The AO levied penalties of ?96,75,037 for AY 2007-08 and ?80,84,867 for AY 2008-09. For AY 2007-08, the additions included: - Interest pertaining to prior periods: ?2,65,68,325 - Increase in statutory reserve fund: ?37,37,184 - Deduction claimed on account of investment fluctuation fund: ?2,95,641 - Provision for standard assets: ?4,44,500 - Amortization on premium on government securities: ?6,12,119 For AY 2008-09, the additions included: - Interest pertaining to prior periods: ?1,75,84,142 - Deduction claimed on account of investment fluctuation fund: ?17,32,500 - Amortization on premium on government securities: ?6,12,119 - Forfeited amount of dividend: ?40,02,265 - Provisions for loss assets and contingencies: ?15,83,000 - Penal interest received directly credited to reserve fund: ?10,87,242 - Loss of Sinhgad Urban Co-operative Bank: ?16,16,187 - Provisions for overdue interest reserve: ?17,40,000 - Forfeited sundry creditors amount directly credited to reserve fund: ?1,88,877 - Provisions for audit fees: ?1,19,277 - Excess cash amount directly credited to reserve fund: ?20,547 - Deduction claimed under Section 80P(2): ?50,000 - Service tax liability not paid before due date: ?653 The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] deleted the penalties except for the addition related to prior period interest for both years. Both the assessee and the Department appealed to the Tribunal. 2. Validity of Notice Issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c): The assessee challenged the validity of the notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c), arguing that the AO did not strike off the irrelevant limb of the charge, making the notice ambiguous. The AO mentioned both "furnishing inaccurate particulars of income" and "concealment of income" without specifying the exact charge, which led to inconsistency and ambiguity. The Tribunal noted that the AO's satisfaction for initiating penalty proceedings and the subsequent penalty orders were not consistent. The AO used both charges interchangeably, which is not permissible as "concealment of income" and "furnishing inaccurate particulars of income" are distinct offenses with different connotations. The Tribunal referred to the judgments of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT v. Samson Perinchery and the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in CIT v. Manjunath Cotton & Ginning Factory, which held that the AO must be specific in mentioning the charge for penalty. A vague notice that does not clearly specify the charge violates the principles of natural justice and is not sustainable. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the notices issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) were bad in law due to the ambiguity and inconsistency in specifying the charge for penalty. Additionally, the Tribunal noted that similar additions for AY 2009-10 did not result in penalty, further supporting the assessee's case. Result: The appeals of the assessee were allowed, and the appeals of the Department were dismissed. The penalties levied under Section 271(1)(c) for AY 2007-08 and AY 2008-09 were deleted. Order Pronounced: Order pronounced on Friday, the 24th day of March, 2017.
|
