2017 (6) TMI 397 - AT - Income Tax

Levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - disallowance of foreign travelling expenses - defective notice - Held that - As perused the copy of notice placed we find that it is a printed Performa wherein the relevant column has not been struck off. Under similar facts the Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory 2013 (7) TMI 620 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT has held that the practice of department sending a printed form where all the grounds mentioned u/s 271(1)(c) are outlined would not satisfy requirement of law when the consequences of the assessee not rebutting the initial presumption is serious in nature and he had to pay penalty from 100% to 300% of the tax liability. As the said provisions have to be strictly construed, notice issued u/s 274 should satisfy the grounds which he has to meet specifically, otherwise the principle of natural justice is offended if the show cause notice is vague and on the basis of such provision, no penalty could be imposed on the assessee - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Validity of the statutory notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c).

Detailed Analysis:

1. Levy of Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961:

Facts and Arguments:
- The assessee's appeal was against the levy of penalty amounting to ?1,90,867/- on disallowance of foreign traveling expenses of ?5,21,600/-.
- The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed the expenses due to the assessee's failure to prove the business purpose of the foreign travels.
- The assessee argued that all particulars were disclosed and the expenses were incurred to explore export possibilities, with subsequent export to Nepal.
- The AO imposed the penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income as no documentary evidence was provided to substantiate the business purpose.

CIT (Appeals) Findings:
- The CIT (Appeals) upheld the penalty, stating that the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the expenses.
- The CIT (Appeals) noted that the disallowance was upheld by the ITAT due to lack of evidence.
- The CIT (Appeals) emphasized that the onus to prove business expenditure lies with the claimant, and failure to do so constitutes a false claim.

Tribunal's Analysis:
- The Tribunal noted that the assessee provided invoices proving export to Nepal, which was not contested by the Revenue.
- It was held that for the expenses related to Nepal, the assessee had established the business purpose, and thus, no penalty should be levied for these expenses.
- For the remaining expenses, the assessee failed to provide sufficient explanation or evidence to prove the business purpose.
- The Tribunal concluded that for the unexplained expenses, the penalty under section 271(1)(c) was justified.

2. Validity of the Statutory Notice Issued under Section 274 Read with Section 271(1)(c):

Arguments:
- The assessee contended that the show cause notice was defective as it did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars.
- The assessee relied on the decision in CIT Vs. SSA’s Emerald Meadows and CIT Vs Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory, arguing that a vague notice violates principles of natural justice.

Tribunal's Findings:
- The Tribunal observed that the notice was a printed form without specifying the exact grounds for penalty.
- Citing the Karnataka High Court’s decision in Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory, the Tribunal emphasized that the notice must clearly state the grounds for penalty.
- The Tribunal held that a vague notice does not satisfy legal requirements, and thus, the penalty cannot be sustained.

Conclusion:
- The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, canceling the penalty due to the defective notice and the substantiated claim of business purpose for the expenses related to Nepal.

Order:
- The appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the penalty was canceled.