2020 (6) TMI 76 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Invalid notice - non specification of charge - non-striking of the inaccurate portion in notice - HELD THAT - The show cause notice issued in the present case u/s 274 of the Act does not specify the charge against the assessee as to whether it is for concealing particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The show cause notice u/s 274 of the Act does not strike out the inappropriate words. In these circumstances, we are of the view that imposition of penalty cannot be sustained. Case followed M/S MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY OTHS., M/S. V.S. LAD SONS, 2013 (7) TMI 620 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the penalty notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Adequacy of the specifics in the penalty notice regarding the charge of either "concealment of income" or "furnishing inaccurate particulars of income."

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Penalty Notice Issued Under Section 274 Read with Section 271 of the Income-tax Act, 1961:
The core issue revolves around whether the penalty notice issued by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 274 read with Section 271 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is valid. The assessee contended that the notice was void ab initio and illegal because it did not specify whether the penalty was for "concealment of particulars of income" or for "furnishing inaccurate particulars of income." This lack of specificity was argued to breach the principles of natural justice.

2. Adequacy of the Specifics in the Penalty Notice Regarding the Charge of Either "Concealment of Income" or "Furnishing Inaccurate Particulars of Income":
The tribunal noted that the AO did not strike out the inapplicable part in the penalty notice, leaving ambiguity regarding the exact nature of the charge. This ambiguity was deemed significant in light of the Karnataka High Court's decision in CIT vs. SSA’s Emerald Meadows and CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory, which held that a penalty notice must clearly specify the charge to be valid. The tribunal also referenced the Supreme Court's dismissal of the revenue's appeal against the Karnataka High Court's decision, reinforcing the necessity for clarity in penalty notices.

The tribunal further discussed various case laws cited by the Departmental Representative (DR), including decisions from the Calcutta High Court, Bombay High Court, and ITAT Mumbai. The tribunal distinguished these cases on the grounds that they either did not address the specific issue of clarity in the penalty notice or were not binding precedents for the tribunal.

The tribunal emphasized that when there are conflicting judicial views, the view favorable to the assessee should be adopted. Consequently, the tribunal followed the Karnataka High Court's decision, which required the penalty notice to explicitly state whether the charge was for "concealment of income" or "furnishing inaccurate particulars of income."

Conclusion:
The tribunal concluded that the imposition of penalty in the present case could not be sustained due to the defective penalty notice. The notice's failure to specify the charge violated the principles of natural justice and rendered the penalty proceedings invalid. Therefore, the tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal and directed the cancellation of the penalty.

Final Judgment:
The appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) was deleted. The order was pronounced in the open court on 29th May, 2020.