9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (1) TMI 742 - AT - Income TaxPenalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 - non specification of charge - Held that - AO has initiated the penalty for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars, which is contrary to the provisions of law. Also of the view that assessment order issued by the AO is bad in law as it does not specify under which limb of section 271(1)(c) the penalty proceedings had been initiated i.e. whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. Therefore, the penalty in dispute is not sustainable in the eyes of law. See CIT & Anr. Vs. M/s SSA s Emerald Meadows 2015 (11) TMI 1620 Karnataka High Court - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of penalty orders under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. 2. Merits of the penalty order under Section 271(1)(c) amounting to ?433,132. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of Penalty Orders under Section 271(1)(c): The appellant challenged the penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 271(1)(c) on jurisdictional grounds, arguing that the assessment order dated 26.12.2016 was "delightfully vague" regarding the requisite satisfaction of the AO to validly initiate penalty proceedings under Section 271(1B) of the Act. The assessment order did not disclose under which specific limb—concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars—the penalty charge was made. This lack of specificity was argued as a fatal error, making the penalty order unsustainable in law. The appellant relied on the decisions of the Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT & Ors. Vs. M/s Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory & Ors. (2013) 359 ITR 565 and the Apex Court in CIT & Anr. Vs. M/s SSA’s Emerald Meadows (2016), which held that a penalty notice must specify the exact charge under Section 271(1)(c) for it to be valid. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant, noting that the AO's assessment order was indeed vague and did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. This ambiguity rendered the penalty order invalid. The Tribunal cited several precedents, including the Karnataka High Court and Supreme Court rulings, to support this view and concluded that the penalty was not sustainable in law. 2. Merits of the Penalty Order under Section 271(1)(c) Amounting to ?433,132: The appellant contended that the penalty order under Section 271(1)(c) was unsustainable on several grounds: - The addition made by the AO under Section 68 was incorrect and violated the principles of natural justice, as no incriminating material was brought on record. - There was no intentional wrongdoing or conscious concealment by the assessee, who provided a bona fide explanation supported by valid documentary evidence. - The assessee's conduct was above board, with no material facts suppressed or wrongly mentioned in the return filed. - Higher court rulings had already decided similar claims in favor of the assessee, making the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) unwarranted. - The facts were not disproved by the AO, falling into the category of facts not proved rather than disproved. - The law does not bar assessees from making and testing a claim through their return of income, which is scrutinized by revenue authorities. The Tribunal found merit in these arguments, noting that the AO had imposed the penalty without clear evidence of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal emphasized that the AO's failure to specify the exact charge in the penalty notice was a significant procedural lapse, rendering the penalty order invalid. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the appeals, canceling the penalty orders under Section 271(1)(c) for both cases. The Tribunal's decision was based on the lack of specificity in the AO's penalty notices and the failure to prove intentional concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars by the assessee. The Tribunal's ruling was consistent with the legal precedents set by higher courts, ensuring that the penalty orders were quashed on both jurisdictional and substantive grounds.
|
