2019 (4) TMI 513 - AT - Income Tax

Levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - addition under the head kitti Scrap Sale - non specification of charge - defective notice - Whether the assessee has concealed particulars of income or assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income ? - Held that - Notice issued by the Assessing Officer under Section 274 read with Section 271(l)(c) to be bad in law as it did not specify which limb of Section 271(l)(c) of the Act, the penalty proceedings had been initiated i.e., whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The Tribunal, while allowing the appeal of the assessee, has relied on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -VS- MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY (2013 (7) TMI 620 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT) - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 based on inaccurate particulars of income.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Levy of Penalty under Section 271(1)(c)
The appeal was filed against the order of CIT(A) confirming the penalty of ?1,05,973 levied by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The AO had made an addition under the head "kitti Scrap Sale" in the assessment, followed by a notice under section 274 read with section 271 alleging that inaccurate particulars of income were furnished. The CIT(A) upheld the penalty, leading to the appeal. The Assessee argued that the penalty notice did not specify the exact charge, citing relevant case laws. The Departmental Representative did not contest this argument. The Tribunal observed that the notice did not specify whether inaccurate particulars were furnished or income was concealed, following a similar judgment by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court. The Tribunal referred to a Supreme Court judgment dismissing the Revenue's appeal against a similar decision by the Karnataka High Court. It was concluded that the penalty notice was invalid as it did not specify the charge clearly, leading to the cancellation of the penalty order.

Significant Points:
- The penalty notice must clearly specify whether inaccurate particulars were furnished or income was concealed.
- Failure to specify the charge clearly in the notice renders the penalty unsustainable.
- Relevant case laws and Supreme Court judgments were considered in reaching the decision.

Outcome:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the Assessee, canceling the penalty order of ?1,05,973. The decision was based on the failure of the penalty notice to specify the nature of the charge clearly, in line with legal precedents and judgments.

This detailed analysis provides a comprehensive overview of the judgment, focusing on the key issue of the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 based on inaccurate particulars of income.