2017 (12) TMI 257 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Held that - AO did not record his satisfaction for initiation of penalty proceedings, because while passing the assessment order dated 30.12.2011 passed u/s. 143(3)(ii) of the Act, the AO has stated that .. Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c)is being initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income / concealment income . , which is not sufficient and therefore, the penalty proceedings cannot be said to be validly initiated under such circumstances. However, nowhere in the assessment order states the specific charge of alleged concealment and / or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, the entire penalty proceedings stand vitiated, because it is not in accordance with law - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961

Analysis:
1. Background and Additions Made:
- The assessee, an investment company, appealed against the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) related to the assessment year 2009-10. The additions made by the Assessing Officer included disallowances under various heads such as u/s. 14A, bad debts, return on investments, and sale of rights claimed as capital loss.

2. Penalty Proceedings and CIT(A) Order:
- The penalty was levied on the grounds of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The CIT(A) upheld the penalty, leading to the appeal by the assessee before the Tribunal.

3. Appellate Tribunal's Decision:
- During the hearing, it was highlighted that two quantum additions had been deleted by the ITAT in a previous order related to the same assessment year. The AO had initiated penalty proceedings without specifying the charge of alleged concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, rendering the penalty proceedings invalid.

4. Legal Precedents and Rival Submissions:
- The assessee's counsel argued that the penalty proceedings were not validly initiated as per legal requirements. They cited relevant case laws to support their contention. On the other hand, the Department relied on various decisions emphasizing the liability for penalties in case of inaccurate claims or concealment of income.

5. Tribunal's Decision and Legal Basis:
- The Tribunal noted that the initiation of penalty proceedings lacked specificity and did not comply with legal standards. Citing legal precedents, the Tribunal found in favor of the assessee and deleted the penalty. The decision was based on the invalid initiation of penalty proceedings and not on the merits of the case.

6. Outcome:
- As a result, the Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, canceling the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The decision was made based on the procedural irregularities in initiating the penalty proceedings, as highlighted by the legal precedents cited during the case.

This detailed analysis of the legal judgment showcases the issues involved, the arguments presented by both parties, the legal precedents cited, and the Tribunal's decision based on the procedural irregularities in the penalty proceedings initiation.