2020 (3) TMI 1173 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - non specification of charge - HELD THAT - Legal requirement of making a clear cut reference to the applicable limb of clause (c) of section 271(1) of the Act, is not met by the Assessing Officer while initiating and levying the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer suffers from ambiguity in his mind. Considering the above referred binding judgments, we are of the view that such penalty is unsustainable in law legally. It is a settled legal proposition that AO is under obligation to specify the appropriate limb of clause (c) of section 271(1) of the Act at the time of initiation as well as at the time of levy of penalty. In view of the above deliberation on this issue, without going into the merits of the case, we set-aside the order of the CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the entire penalty imposed by him. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed on legal issue.

Issues involved:
Levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 based on ambiguous satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer, failure to specify the specific default in the penalty notice, and legal requirement for a clear reference to the applicable limb of clause (c) of section 271(1) of the Act.

Analysis:

1. Ambiguity in Satisfaction for Penalty Proceedings:
The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) citing inaccurate particulars of income without specifying the specific default. The Tribunal noted the ambiguity in the satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer, which is a legal requirement. The judgment referred to precedents emphasizing the necessity of a clear reference to the applicable limb of clause (c) of section 271(1) of the Act. Consequently, the penalty was deemed unsustainable due to the lack of clarity in the initiation and levy of penalty.

2. Legal Requirement for Specific Default in Penalty Notice:
The grounds raised by the assessee challenged the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer, highlighting the absence of a specific ground for initiating the penalty proceedings in the notice u/s 274 r/w s 271. The Tribunal found merit in this argument, emphasizing the importance of specifying the particular default for which the penalty is imposed. Citing relevant judgments, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and directed the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty, as the legal requirement for a clear reference was not met.

3. Judgment and Relief Granted:
The Tribunal, after thorough analysis, allowed all three appeals of the assessee on legal grounds. The decision was based on the legal insufficiency in the initiation and levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal's order, pronounced in March 2020, highlighted the significance of complying with legal requirements and ensuring clarity in penalty proceedings to uphold the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness.

4. Application of Decision to Similar Appeals:
The judgment further clarified that the relief granted on legal arguments to the assessee in one appeal would apply mutatis mutandis to other similar appeals. This approach ensured consistency in the application of legal principles across related cases, emphasizing the importance of uniformity in judicial decisions and outcomes.

By addressing the issues of ambiguous satisfaction in penalty proceedings, the lack of specific default in the penalty notice, and the legal requirement for a clear reference to the applicable limb of clause (c) of section 271(1) of the Act, the Tribunal upheld the principles of procedural fairness and legal compliance in tax matters, ultimately granting relief to the assessee based on sound legal reasoning and precedents.

← Previous Next →