2020 (9) TMI 956 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271AAB - Defective notice - whether penalty notice apparent to have nowhere specified as to under which limb the he sought to invoke sec. 271AAB penal action? - undisclosed income unearthed during the course of search u/s 132 - HELD THAT - Respectfully following the judgment of jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT V/s Kulwant Singh Bhatia 2018 (5) TMI 960 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT , DCIT V/s R. Elangovan 2018 (4) TMI 1553 - ITAT CHENNAI and SHRI RAVI MATHUR, VERSUS THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, 2018 (6) TMI 1128 - ITAT JAIPUR and in the given facts and circumstances of the case wherein the matter written in the body of the notice issued u/s 274 of the Act does not refer to the charges of provision of Section 271AAB of the Act makes the alleged notice defective and invalid and thus deserves to be quashed. Since the penalty proceedings itself has been quashed the impugned penalty stands deleted. Thus assessee succeeds on legal ground challenging the validity of notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271AAB of the Act. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Correctness of the penalty imposed under Section 271AAB of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Validity of the notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271AAB of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
3. Compliance with principles of natural justice in issuing penalty notices.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Correctness of the Penalty Imposed under Section 271AAB:
The assessee challenged the imposition of a penalty of ?7,50,000 under Section 271AAB for the assessment year 2014-15. The penalty was based on undisclosed income unearthed during a search. The Tribunal referred to a similar case, Shri Ashok Bhatia vs. DCIT, where the penalty under Section 271AAB was deleted due to procedural defects in the notice issued under Section 274.

2. Validity of the Notice Issued under Section 274 read with Section 271AAB:
The Tribunal examined whether the notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271AAB was valid. It was observed that the Assessing Officer's penalty notice did not specify the exact limb under which the penalty was sought. The Tribunal cited the requirement under Section 274 that the notice must clearly convey the charge against the assessee. The notice should specify whether the penalty is for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal found that the notices issued were vague and did not meet the legal requirements, as they failed to specify the exact charge under Section 271AAB.

3. Compliance with Principles of Natural Justice:
The Tribunal emphasized the importance of providing a reasonable opportunity for the assessee to be heard, as mandated by Section 274(1). The notices issued to the assessee were found to be generic and did not provide specific information about the grounds for the penalty. This lack of specificity was deemed to violate the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal referred to several judicial precedents, including the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court's decision in Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory, which held that a notice must clearly state the grounds for penalty to comply with natural justice principles.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the penalty notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271AAB was invalid due to its vagueness and failure to specify the exact charge. Consequently, the penalty order was set aside. The Tribunal's decision was based on the procedural defect in the notice, rendering the penalty proceedings invalid. The appeal was allowed, and the impugned penalty was deleted.

Order Pronouncement:
The order was pronounced in open court on 17th September 2020, allowing the assessee's appeal and deleting the penalty imposed under Section 271AAB.