9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (4) TMI 266 - AT - Income TaxPenalty u/s 271(1)(c) - non specification of charge - defective notice - HELD THAT - As decided in COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE AND THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6 (3) , BANGALORE VERSUS M/S SSA S EMERALD MEADOWS 2015 (11) TMI 1620 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT as relying on M/S MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY & OTHS., M/S. V.S. LAD & SONS, 2013 (7) TMI 620 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT imposing of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is bad in law and invalid for the reason that the show cause notice u/s 274 of the Act does not specify the charge against the assessee as to whether it is for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues:
Challenging levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for assessment year 2009-10 - Notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) - Validity of penalty order - Whether penalty proceedings are initiated for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars - Non-application of mind by Assessing Officer - Sustainability of penalty. Analysis: 1. Challenging the Levy of Penalty: - Two appeals filed by the assessee for assessment year 2009-10 challenging the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. - Appeal No. 553/Asr./2017 dismissed due to filing duplicate appeal. - Proceeding to adjudicate appeal No. 580/Asr./2017. 2. Validity of Penalty Order: - Assessee's representatives argued that the penalty order of &8377; 9,77,480/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is bad in law and not sustainable. - Assessing Officer levied the penalty, and the facts were not in dispute. - The Departmental Representative did not counter the submission of the assessee's representatives. 3. Notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c): - Tribunal found that the notice issued by the Assessing Officer did not specify the limb of Section 271(1)(c) under which the penalty proceedings were initiated. - Citing the decision in CIT Vs Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory, the Tribunal held the notice to be bad in law. - The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, stating that no substantial question of law arose as the matter was covered by a previous judgment. 4. Non-Application of Mind by Assessing Officer: - The notice issued u/s 271(1)(c) did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. - Failure to strike off irrelevant limb in the notice was considered non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer. - Previous court decisions emphasized the need for clarity in specifying the limb under which the penalty is levied. 5. Sustainability of Penalty: - The penalty provisions of section 271(1)(c) are attracted when there is concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. - The Assessing Officer's failure to specify the relevant limb in the notice rendered the penalty unsustainable. - Following the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court, the Tribunal canceled the penalty order and allowed the appeal of the assessee. 6. Final Decision: - The Tribunal dismissed one appeal and allowed the other, canceling the penalty order of &8377; 9,77,480/-. - The judgment was pronounced on 21/02/2019, in favor of the assessee. This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues involved, the arguments presented, and the legal principles applied in reaching the decision to cancel the penalty order based on the non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer in specifying the grounds for the penalty.
|
