2019 (9) TMI 1006 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - defective notice - non-striking of the irrelevant portion in the show-cause notice - HELD THAT - Show cause notice, which has not specified the charge and limb under which the penalty is proposed to be levied, is void ab initio and the consequent penalty imposed on the basis of such notice is, therefore, illegal and bad in law and liable to be deleted. We, therefore, direct deletion of the penalty. See SRI CHANDRA PRAKASH BUBNA 2015 (5) TMI 1096 - ITAT KOLKATA and M/S MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY OTHS., M/S. V.S. LAD SONS, 2013 (7) TMI 620 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Specificity of charge in the notice under section 274 for penalty under section 271(1)(c).
3. Compliance with principles of natural justice in penalty proceedings.

Analysis:
1. The appellant challenged the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) for Assessment Year 2014-15, contending that the notice did not specify the charge clearly. The appellant argued that without a specific charge, the penalty is illegal and unsustainable. The appeal was against the order of the ld. CIT(A)-I, Kanpur, which upheld the penalty.

2. During the hearing, the appellant's representative highlighted the show cause notice dated 19/12/2016, emphasizing that the charge for the penalty was not specific, whether for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The appellant argued that a clear notice is essential for the taxpayer to prepare a defense. The respondent relied on lower authorities' decisions.

3. The Tribunal observed that the notice lacked specificity regarding the basis for the penalty under section 271(1)(c). Citing legal precedents, including 'CIT vs. SSA's Emerald Meadows' and 'CIT and Another vs. Manjunath Cotton & Ginning Factory,' it was established that a vague notice violates natural justice principles. The Tribunal emphasized that penalty proceedings must adhere to natural justice principles and specified charges. Referring to 'Meherjee Cassinath Holdings Pvt. Ltd vs. ACIT' and 'Chandra Prakash Bubna vs. Income Tax Officer,' the Tribunal concluded that penalties imposed without specific charges are invalid. Consequently, the penalty was deemed void ab initio and was directed to be deleted.

4. The Tribunal's decision was based on the principle that penalty proceedings, being quasi-criminal, must comply with natural justice standards. The lack of specificity in the notice regarding the charge for the penalty rendered the penalty illegal and unsustainable. Therefore, the appeal was allowed, and the penalty was directed to be deleted, emphasizing the importance of clear and specific charges in penalty notices to ensure fairness and compliance with legal requirements.