2017 (5) TMI 482 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - validity of notice u/s 274 - assessee had declared additional income pursuant to the search operation - Held that - There is no merit in the penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer in this regard wherein he has not come to a conclusion as to which limb of section 271(1)(c) has been fulfilled by the assessee. In any case, in the satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer, while initiating the penalty proceedings, he was satisfied that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income whereas this is a case of search wherein certain income was not offered to tax, hence at best, it is a case of concealment of income and not furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Be that as may be, the Assessing Officer in the final analysis has not levied the penalty for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income but also for concealing the income on one addition of ₹ 75 lakhs. There is no merit in the said order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. See Kanhaiyalal D. Jain Versus The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 3, Nashik 2016 (12) TMI 1238 - ITAT PUNE - Decided in favour of assessee

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer regarding concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.
3. Validity of the notice issued under section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act.
4. Merits of the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961:
The Tribunal examined the penalty proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer (AO) under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The AO had levied penalties for both concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Tribunal highlighted that the AO must specify which limb of section 271(1)(c) is applicable—either concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Tribunal found that the AO did not conclusively determine which specific limb was applicable, thus rendering the penalty order legally flawed.

2. Satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer regarding concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income:
The Tribunal emphasized that the AO must record satisfaction during the assessment proceedings about whether the assessee has concealed income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income. In this case, the AO's satisfaction was ambiguous as it referred to both limbs of section 271(1)(c). The Tribunal referenced the case of Kanhaiyalal D. Jain Vs. ACIT, which held that the AO must clearly establish satisfaction for either concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars, not both.

3. Validity of the notice issued under section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act:
The Tribunal scrutinized the notice issued under section 274, which did not clearly indicate whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal cited the Karnataka High Court's decision in CIT Vs. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory, which mandates that the notice must specify the exact charge against the assessee. The Tribunal found that the notice in the present case was vague and ambiguous, leading to a violation of the principles of natural justice, thereby invalidating the penalty proceedings.

4. Merits of the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act:
On the merits, the Tribunal noted that the additional income was offered by the assessee pursuant to a search operation. The AO had accepted this additional income but initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c). The Tribunal found that the AO had not clearly established whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Additionally, the Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had issued an enhancement notice and concluded that certain amounts were loans, not on-money from plot sales, further complicating the basis for the penalty. Consequently, the Tribunal held that there was no merit in the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) and directed the AO to delete the penalty.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, finding no merit in the penalty proceedings initiated under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Tribunal directed the AO to delete the penalty, emphasizing the necessity for clear satisfaction and specific charges in penalty proceedings. The decision underscored the importance of adhering to procedural requirements to uphold the principles of natural justice.