2018 (2) TMI 1345 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) - defective notice - Held that - We find that the notice dt. 18-03-2013 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. Thus penalty deleted - Decided in favour of assessee.

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act.
2. Defectiveness of the statutory notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271 of the Income Tax Act.
3. Applicability of the Supreme Court's decision in SSA’s Emerald Meadows to the present case.
4. Consideration of precedents and judicial interpretations from various High Courts and ITAT benches.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Penalty Imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act:
The primary issue in this appeal was the validity of the penalty of ?1,43,747/- imposed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, which was subsequently confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT-A]. The penalty was contested on the grounds that the statutory notice issued was defective.

2. Defectiveness of the Statutory Notice Issued under Section 274 read with Section 271:
The appellant argued that the statutory notice dated 18-03-2013 issued by the AO under Section 274 read with Section 271 was defective. The notice did not specify whether the penalty was for "concealment of income" or "furnishing inaccurate particulars of income." This ambiguity was claimed to be a significant defect, rendering the penalty proceedings invalid.

3. Applicability of the Supreme Court's Decision in SSA’s Emerald Meadows:
The appellant relied heavily on the Supreme Court's decision in SSA’s Emerald Meadows, where it was held that a penalty based on a defective notice is not maintainable. The Supreme Court had dismissed the Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by the Revenue, thereby upholding the Karnataka High Court's decision that a notice must clearly specify the charge against the assessee.

4. Consideration of Precedents and Judicial Interpretations:
The respondent (Revenue) argued that the penalty should be upheld based on various precedents, including decisions from the Calcutta High Court, Bombay High Court, and Patna High Court, which suggested that minor defects in the notice do not invalidate the penalty proceedings. Specifically, the Calcutta High Court in Dr. Syamal Baran Mondal Vs. CIT stated that the satisfaction of the AO must reflect from the order, either through explicit words or overt actions.

The ITAT Kolkata considered these arguments and the written submissions from both sides. It noted that the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal had previously addressed similar issues in the case of Jeetmal Choraria, preferring the Karnataka High Court's view in Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory. The principle established was that if there are two views on an issue, the one favoring the assessee should be adopted, as enunciated by the Supreme Court in the case of Vegetable Products Ltd.

The Tribunal found that the notice issued in the present case was indeed defective, as it did not specify the exact charge against the assessee. This defect was considered significant enough to invalidate the penalty proceedings. The Tribunal also noted that the Supreme Court had dismissed the Revenue's SLP against the Karnataka High Court's decision in SSA’s Emerald Meadows, reinforcing the position that a defective notice cannot sustain a penalty.

Conclusion:
The ITAT Kolkata concluded that the penalty of ?1,43,747/- imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act could not be sustained due to the defective notice issued under Section 274. The appeal by the assessee was allowed, and the penalty was canceled. The Tribunal's decision was pronounced in the open court on 16-02-2018.

← Previous Next →