2019 (1) TMI 747 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - non specification of limb of section 271(1)(c) under which the assessee was charged - Held that - Notice under section 271(1)(c) is not specific as it did not mention specifically as to which limb penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is imposed upon the assessee by the Assessing Officer. Notice for imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act issued in the case of the assessee is bad in law, invalid and, therefore, liable to be quashed. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues: Appeal against penalty under section 271(1)(c) and quantum addition.

Analysis:

1. Appeal against penalty under section 271(1)(c): The appellant contested the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The appellant argued that the notice issued did not specify the limb of section 271(1)(c) under which the assessee was charged. The appellant cited a judgment of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court to support the argument that the assessee should have been given notice before dismissing the appeal. The Tribunal noted that the notice issued by the Assessing Officer was not specific and did not mention the charge against the assessee. Relying on previous judgments, including one by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court, the Tribunal held that the notice for imposition of penalty was bad in law, invalid, and liable to be quashed. Consequently, the penalty was deleted, following the precedent set by previous cases.

2. Appeal against quantum addition: In the appeal against the quantum addition, the appellant raised concerns regarding a show cause notice issued by the Assessing Officer for imposition of penalty without specifying the relevant charge against the assessee. The appellant referred to previous decisions by various Benches of the Tribunal and the Hon'ble Supreme Court, emphasizing the necessity of specifying the charge for a legal penalty imposition. The Tribunal acknowledged the appellant's argument and noted that the show cause notice lacked specificity in mentioning the charge against the assessee. Citing relevant judgments, including one by the Hon'ble Lucknow Bench of the Tribunal, the Tribunal held that the notice for imposition of penalty was bad in law and invalid. Therefore, the Tribunal remitted the issue back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication after hearing the assessee on the reasons for delay and passing an order on merits.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal against the penalty under section 271(1)(c) and remitted the appeal against the quantum addition back to the CIT(A) for further consideration. The judgments cited regarding the specificity of charges in penalty notices played a crucial role in the Tribunal's decision-making process, ensuring fairness and adherence to legal procedures.