2020 (3) TMI 1221 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - non recording of satisfaction - Defective notice - HELD THAT - On perusal of facts, we find that the Ld. AO has initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) for both limbs, i.e, for concealment of particulars of income and for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The said lapses continued in show cause notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) where the Ld. AO has issued printed notice without striking of inapplicable part of notice. From the above, it is very clear that the Ld. AO has not arrived at clear satisfaction, as required under law before initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act, 1961,whether said penalty proceedings has been initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or for concealment of particulars of income. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the whole penalty proceedings consequent to vague or invalid notice is void ab initio and liable to be quashed and hence, we quashed penalty order passed by the Ld. AO u/s 271(1)(c) - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of penalty notice under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Justification of concealment penalty on ad-hoc addition made on account of non-genuine purchases.
3. Validity of concealment penalty on disallowance made under section 43B of the Act.

Issue 1: Validity of penalty notice under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961:
The appeal challenged the penalty notice dated 25.03.2015 issued under section 274 r.w.s 271 of the Act, arguing that it was void ab initio as it did not specify whether the penalty proceedings were initiated for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of the assessing officer (AO) recording a clear satisfaction before initiating penalty proceedings. It cited legal precedents, including the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, to support the requirement of categorically specifying the limb under which penalty proceedings are initiated. The Tribunal concluded that the penalty proceedings were void ab initio due to the vague notice and quashed the penalty order.

Issue 2: Justification of concealment penalty on ad-hoc addition made on account of non-genuine purchases:
The appellant contested the levy of concealment penalty on ad-hoc disallowance of purchases based on investigation by the Sales Tax Department, arguing that it was unjustified. The appellant claimed to have provided all relevant evidence to prove the genuineness of purchases but was denied an opportunity to rebut the material used for disallowance. The Tribunal noted the appellant's submissions and concluded that the levy of concealment penalty on non-genuine purchases was unjustified. It highlighted the denial of the opportunity to cross-examine the department's witness and deleted the penalty.

Issue 3: Validity of concealment penalty on disallowance made under section 43B of the Act:
The appellant challenged the levy of concealment penalty on disallowance under section 43B, contending that the disallowance was unjustified as the service tax was not received from clients. The Tribunal observed that the assessing officer erred in confirming the penalty without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case. It noted the appellant's argument regarding the non-receipt of service tax and deemed the disallowance unjustified. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the concealment penalty on the disallowance under section 43B was not justified and deleted the penalty.

The Tribunal's detailed analysis addressed the issues raised by the appellant, emphasizing the legal requirements for initiating penalty proceedings and the necessity of clear satisfaction by the assessing officer. It considered the facts and circumstances of the case to determine the validity and justification of the concealment penalties imposed, ultimately ruling in favor of the appellant and quashing the penalty orders.