9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (2) TMI 938 - AT - Income TaxPenalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Defective notice - notice issued u/s 274, the Assessing Officer has not struck down the irrelevant portion in the said notice - Curable defect u/s 292BB - HELD THAT - Show cause notice u/s. 274 of the Act is defective as it does not spell out the grounds on which the penalty is sought to be imposed. Further, the Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v. SSA s Emerald Meadows 2015 (11) TMI 1620 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT it was held that imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is bad in law and invalid for the reason that the show cause notice issued u/s 274 of the I.T.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. Also confirmed by SC 2016 (8) TMI 1145 - SC ORDER Provisions of sec.292BB would not come to the rescue of the revenue, when the notice was not in substance and effect in conformity with or according to the intent and purpose of the Act. In our view, the notice issued by the Assessing Officer was not in substance, and effect in conformity with or according to the intent and purpose of the Act, since the Assessing Officer did not specify the charge for which penalty proceedings were initiated and further there was non-application of mind on the part of the Assessing Officer. For the reasons given above, we hold that levy of penalty in the present case cannot be sustained.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. 2. Specification of the charge in the penalty notice. 3. Application of Section 292B of the Income Tax Act. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of Penalty Proceedings under Section 271(1)(c): The appeal concerns the penalty order passed by the CIT(A) under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2012-2013. The assessee argued that the penalty proceedings were initiated without clear specification of whether the penalty was for "concealment of income" or "furnishing inaccurate particulars of income." The tribunal noted that during the survey, unexplained investments and additional income were discovered, leading to the initiation of penalty proceedings. The Assessing Officer (AO) concluded that the assessee had concealed particulars of income, leading to a penalty of ?16,01,000. The CIT(A) confirmed this penalty order. 2. Specification of the Charge in the Penalty Notice: The assessee contended that the AO failed to strike down the irrelevant portion of the notice issued under Section 274, making it unclear whether the penalty was for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The tribunal referenced the Karnataka High Court's decision in CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory, which held that the penalty notice must clearly state the grounds for the penalty to meet the requirements of natural justice. The tribunal found that the AO's failure to specify the charge in the notice rendered the penalty proceedings invalid. 3. Application of Section 292B of the Income Tax Act: The tribunal considered whether Section 292B, which allows for the curing of procedural defects, could apply in this case. The tribunal cited the Karnataka High Court's decision in CIT v. SSA’s Emerald Meadows, which held that a defective notice under Section 274 cannot be cured by Section 292B if it fails to specify the charge. The tribunal concluded that the defect in the notice was fundamental and could not be cured by Section 292B. The tribunal also referenced the case of Shri K. Prakash Shetty vs. ACIT, which supported the view that the provisions of Section 292BB would not apply if the notice was not in conformity with the intent and purpose of the Act. Conclusion: The tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were invalid due to the defective notice under Section 274, which did not specify the charge against the assessee. Consequently, the penalty imposed was canceled, and the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed. The tribunal emphasized the importance of clear and specific charges in penalty notices to uphold the principles of natural justice.
|
