2018 (4) TMI 1430 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - non specification of charge - defective notice - Held that - AO is required to specify which limb of Section 271 (1)(c) of the Act the penalty proceedings had been initiated i.e. whether for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. From the perusal of the notice u/s.274 r.w.s. 271 of the Act in the present appeal it is very much obvious that the Assessing Officer has not specified the same. The notice in fact is in standard pro forma without the irrelevant clauses therein being struck off. This indicates non application of mind on the part of the Assessing Officer while issuing the penalty notice. See CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory 2013 (7) TMI 620 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT - Decided in favour of assessee

Summary

Issues:
- Imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for claiming deduction u/s 80IC while computing book profits u/s 115JB.
- Validity of penalty proceedings initiation notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271 of the Act.
- Allegation of concealment of income versus furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.
- Contradiction in approach of the department regarding penalty imposition.

Analysis:
1. Imposition of Penalty: The appeal was against the penalty imposed for claiming deduction u/s 80IC while computing book profits u/s 115JB. The AO initially allowed the deduction claimed by the assessee but later initiated penalty proceedings alleging concealment of income. The CIT (A) upheld the penalty, leading the assessee to approach the ITAT challenging the penalty confirmation.

2. Validity of Penalty Proceedings Initiation Notice: The AR argued that the notice u/s 274 did not specify under which limb of section 271(1)(c) the penalty proceedings were initiated, creating ambiguity. Citing precedents, the AR contended that the notice should explicitly state the grounds for penalty initiation, either for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The DR, representing the Revenue, defended the validity of the penalty proceedings initiation notice.

3. Allegation of Concealment vs. Inaccurate Particulars: The High Court's judgments emphasized the importance of specifying the grounds for penalty initiation in the notice. The Tribunal, following these judgments, held that the penalty notice was invalid as it did not specify the limb of Section 271(1)(c) under which the penalty proceedings were initiated. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the Revenue, upholding the decision that the penalty imposition was not sustainable due to the lack of clarity in the notice.

4. Contradiction in Department's Approach: The AR highlighted a contradiction in the department's approach, where the AO recorded concealment of income in the assessment order but imposed a penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. This discrepancy, coupled with the failure to specify the penalty grounds in the notice, led to the ITAT allowing the appeal of the assessee and directing the deletion of the penalty imposed.

In conclusion, the ITAT allowed the appeal of the assessee, emphasizing the necessity of clearly specifying the grounds for penalty initiation in the notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271 of the Act. The judgment underscored the significance of adhering to legal requirements in penalty proceedings and ensuring coherence between the reasons stated in the notice and the penalty imposed.