2020 (2) TMI 934 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - non specification of charge - HELD THAT - Hon'ble High Court of Telangana A.P. in the case of Smt. Baisetty Revathi 2017 (7) TMI 776 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT has considered the very same issue and held that non-striking of the irrelevant portion of the notice issued u/sec. 274 is invalid. The very same judgment has been followed by the coordinate bench of this tribunal in the case of Konchada Sreeram 2017 (11) TMI 1164 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM Therefore, respectfully following above referred to judicial precedents, we hold that the notice issued under section 274 read with section 271, dated 31/12/2009 is invalid and, therefore penalty order passed is hereby cancelled. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Validity of penalty notice under section 271(1)(c) - Whether notice specified concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars.

Analysis:
The appeal was against the penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer for the Assessment Year 2004-05. The additional ground raised before the Tribunal questioned the validity of the penalty notice issued under section 271(1)(c) as it did not specify clearly whether the penalty proceedings were initiated for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The assessee argued that the notice was vague, while the Departmental Representative objected to admitting the additional ground.

The Tribunal considered the legal issue raised by the assessee and referred to a Supreme Court judgment stating that a question of law arising from facts on record should be allowed to be raised to correctly assess the tax liability. The Tribunal admitted the additional ground raised by the assessee for adjudication.

Regarding the validity of the penalty notice issued by the Assessing Officer, the assessee contended that the notice was not clear about the nature of the penalty. The Departmental Representative argued that the notice was premature but valid. The Tribunal examined the notice and found it vague, not specifying whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Citing relevant judgments, including one from the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the High Court of Telangana & A.P., the Tribunal concluded that the notice was invalid.

The Tribunal referred to a similar case where the notice issued by the Assessing Officer was considered invalid due to lack of clarity on the nature of the penalty. Following judicial precedents, including the High Court's decision in a specific case and the Tribunal's earlier rulings, the Tribunal held that the penalty notice was invalid. Consequently, the penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer was canceled, and the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found the penalty notice invalid as it failed to specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The decision was based on legal principles and judicial precedents, leading to the cancellation of the penalty order.