2017 (12) TMI 877 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) - defective notice - Held that - We find that the notice dt. 21-11-2011 issued u/s 274 r.w.s 271 of the Act does not specify the charge of offence committed by the assessee viz whether had concealed the particulars of income or had furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Hence the said notice is to be held as defective. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act.
2. Defective notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Act.
3. Applicability of judicial precedents in determining the validity of the penalty notice.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Penalty Imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act:
The appeal was directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirming the penalty of ?70,69,920 imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act by the Assessing Officer (AO). The appellant argued that the penalty was based on a defective notice and cited the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of SSA’s Emerald Meadows, which invalidated penalties imposed on defective notices. The respondent, however, supported the AO's decision, arguing that the penalty proceedings were correctly initiated and should be upheld.

2. Defective Notice Issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Act:
The appellant contended that the statutory notice dated 21-11-2011 issued by the AO was defective as it did not specify the charge of offense, i.e., whether the penalty was for concealing particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The appellant relied on the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. SSA’s Emerald Meadows, which was upheld by the Supreme Court, to argue that such a defective notice cannot sustain the imposition of penalty.

3. Applicability of Judicial Precedents:
The respondent cited various case laws to support their contention that the penalty proceedings were valid despite the alleged defects in the notice. These included:
- The judgment of the Calcutta High Court in Dr. Syamal Baran Mondal vs. CIT, which stated that Section 271 does not mandate recording satisfaction about concealment in specific terms.
- The ITAT Mumbai’s decision in Trishul Enterprises vs. DCIT, which dismissed the contention regarding the failure of the AO to strike off the relevant part of the notice.
- The Bombay High Court’s decision in CIT vs. Smt. Kaushalya, which held that mere non-striking off specific limbs cannot invalidate the notice.
- The Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) in M/s. Maharaj Garage & Company vs. CIT, which held that the requirement of Section 274 cannot be stretched to the extent of framing a specific charge.

The Tribunal considered these submissions and noted that the same set of written submissions were filed before the Coordinate Bench in the case of Jeetmal Choraria, where the Bench preferred to follow the Karnataka High Court’s decision in Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory, supported by the Supreme Court’s decision in Vegetable Products Ltd. The Tribunal agreed with this reasoning, emphasizing that where two views are available, the view favorable to the assessee should be followed.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal found that the notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271 of the Act did not specify the charge against the assessee, rendering it defective. The Tribunal noted that the Supreme Court had dismissed the Revenue’s Special Leave Petition against the Karnataka High Court’s judgment in SSA’s Emerald Meadows, reinforcing the position that a defective notice cannot sustain a penalty. Consequently, the Tribunal canceled the penalty of ?70,69,920 imposed by the AO and confirmed by the CIT-A, allowing the appeal of the assessee.

Order:
The appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the penalty was canceled. The order was pronounced in the open court on 13-12-2017.