2020 (3) TMI 878 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Defective notice - non specification of charge - HELD THAT - Notice clearly shows that the Assessing Officer did not specify under which limb of the provision he has initiated the proceedings. Moreover, the penal proceedings are separate from assessment proceedings and while initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, it is incumbent upon the Assessing Officer to demonstrate under which limb he is proposing levy of penalty If the notice is read with the decision of M/S. SAHARA INDIA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD. 2019 (8) TMI 409 - DELHI HIGH COURT in our considered opinion, the penalty will not survive. As decided in M/S SSA'S EMERALD MEADOWS 2016 (8) TMI 1145 - SC ORDER issued by the Assessing Officer u/s 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) of the Act to be bad in law as it did not specify which limb of section 271(1)(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 issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Challenge to validity of penalty notice under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Validity of Penalty Notice
The appeal was against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals] regarding the assessment year 2009-10. The assessee challenged the validity of the penalty notice issued under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The notice did not specify the grounds for initiating penalty proceedings, whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Assessing Officer's failure to specify the limb of the provision under which the penalty was being proposed was a crucial issue.

Analysis:
The notice issued by the Assessing Officer lacked specificity regarding the grounds for initiating penalty proceedings. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, in various cases, including the case of Sahara India Life Insurance Company Ltd, emphasized the necessity of clearly specifying the limb of section 271(1)(c) under which the penalty proceedings were initiated. The failure to do so rendered the penalty notice invalid, as held by the courts in similar cases.

Judicial Precedents:
The judgment referred to the decisions of the Hon'ble High Courts and the Supreme Court, highlighting the importance of clearly specifying the grounds for penalty proceedings. The courts consistently ruled in favor of the assessee when the penalty notice did not specify the limb of section 271(1)(c) under which the penalty was initiated.

Conclusion:
Considering the precedents and the lack of specificity in the penalty notice, the Tribunal set aside the findings of the Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals] and directed the Assessing Officer to delete the imposed penalty. The appeal by the assessee was allowed based on the invalidity of the penalty notice, as per the legal provisions and judicial interpretations.

This detailed analysis showcases the significance of clear communication in penalty notices under the Income-tax Act, ensuring fair treatment and adherence to legal procedures.