9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (8) TMI 802 - AT - Income TaxPenalty u/s 271(1)(c) - defective notice - non specification of exact limb for which the assessee was being penalized - capital gains on sale of property - HELD THAT - We find that penalty has been deleted by Ld. CIT(A), inter-alia, by observing that although the penalty was initiated for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income but finally the penalty has been levied for concealment of income which is impermissible under law. As settled in catena of binding judicial precedent, these two terms carry different meaning / connotations and failure to specify the exact limb for which the assessee was being penalized, would be fatal to the penalty proceedings. The Ld. first appellate authority, in the process of adjudication, has relied upon binding judicial precedents of various Hon ble High Courts such as CIT VERSUS SHRI SAMSON PERINCHERY 2017 (1) TMI 1292 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT , CIT VERSUS M/S MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY OTHS. 2013 (7) TMI 620 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT etc. The revenue is unable to controvert the fact that the said rulings squarely apply to the facts of the present case. No distinguishing facts or features could be pointed by the revenue. Therefore, no fault could be found in the adjudication of Ld. First appellate authority - the revenue s appeal stands dismissed
Issues:
1. Deletion of penalty by CIT(A) for concealment of income. 2. Discrepancy between initiation and levy of penalty. 3. Legal grounds for contesting penalty imposition. Issue 1: Deletion of penalty by CIT(A) for concealment of income: The appellate tribunal heard the revenue's appeal contesting the deletion of a penalty of ?47.92 Lacs imposed by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) for the Assessment Year 2010-11. The penalty was related to non-disclosure of capital gains and alleged bogus purchases. The tribunal examined the penalty order and noted that it was initiated based on the concealment of income discovered during a survey action. The tribunal also considered the assessment order and the penalty initiation by the AO. The CIT(A) deleted the penalty, citing that the penalty was initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income but was levied for concealment of income, which is impermissible under the law. The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing the difference in meaning between the two charges and the necessity to specify the exact grounds for penalization. Issue 2: Discrepancy between initiation and levy of penalty: The tribunal analyzed the discrepancy between the initiation and levy of the penalty. The AO initiated the penalty under section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income but ultimately imposed the penalty for concealment of income. The tribunal referred to various judicial precedents, including decisions by the High Courts and the Supreme Court, which highlighted that penalizing for a different charge than the one initiated is impermissible. The tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that the penalty order should be clear and unambiguous regarding the grounds for penalty imposition. The tribunal emphasized that the penalty cannot be levied for dual charges and must be specific to either concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Issue 3: Legal grounds for contesting penalty imposition: The tribunal considered the legal grounds presented by the assessee against the penalty imposition. The assessee argued that the penalty was initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income but was levied for concealment of income, which was not permissible under the law. The tribunal referenced various judicial decisions to support the assessee's argument, emphasizing the importance of specifying the exact charge for penalty imposition. The tribunal noted that the AO's failure to specify the charge for which the penalty was imposed rendered the penalty proceedings fatal. The tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal, affirming the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the penalty based on the legal grounds presented by the assessee. The tribunal, comprising Sandeep Gosain and Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the penalty imposed by the AO, emphasizing the necessity for clarity in penalty imposition and the impermissibility of penalizing for a charge different from the one initiated. The tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal, concluding that the penalty for concealment of income could not be sustained due to the discrepancy between the initiation and levy of the penalty.
|
