2020 (11) TMI 929 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - defective notice u/s 274 - non striking of irrelevant words in notice - Addition u/s 68 - HELD THAT - In notice, irrelevant words in the penalty notice have not been struck of and, thus, the notice does not specify as to under which the limb of section 271(1)(c) was the penalty being proposed to imposed. Right from the assessment proceedings, AO has been inconsistent in his approach regarding the imposition of penalty. In the assessment order AO has recorded satisfaction for imposition penalty for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income whereas in the notice dated 03.03.2014 issued u/s 274 penalty proceedings have been initiated for concealing particulars of income/furnishing inaccurate particulars. In the penalty order, the penalty has been imposed for furnishing inaccurate particulars of the income as the assessee could not prove that there was no concealment. In the penalty order, the penalty is ultimately imposed for concealing/furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Thus, apparently the assessee was not made aware of the charge for which the penalty was being proposed to be imposed and was finally imposed. See 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:
Imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 based on furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, inconsistency in approach by Assessing Officer regarding penalty imposition, failure to specify the charge for penalty initiation and imposition, relevance of quantum addition confirmation to penalty imposition, applicability of Explanation-1 to Sec.271(1)(c), interpretation of penalty notice under section 274 of the Act, judicial precedents on penalty imposition, and relevance of jurisdictional High Court's judgments.

Imposition of Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) based on Furnishing Inaccurate Particulars of Income:
The appellant, engaged in real estate business, challenged the penalty of ?15,45,000 imposed under section 271(1)(c) for concealing/furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Assessing Officer initiated penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars, but the penalty order mentioned concealment. The Tribunal noted inconsistency in the AO's approach and emphasized that furnishing inaccurate particulars does not automatically imply concealment. The Tribunal referred to judicial precedents and directed the deletion of the penalty due to the failure to specify the charge for penalty initiation and imposition.

Inconsistency in AO's Approach and Failure to Specify Charge for Penalty Initiation and Imposition:
The appellant argued that the AO inconsistently switched between concealing and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, leading to a lack of clarity in penalty imposition. The AO's reliance on Explanation-1 to Sec.271(1)(c) for concealment, despite initiating penalty for inaccurate particulars, was highlighted. The Tribunal supported the appellant's contention, emphasizing the importance of specifying the charge for penalty initiation and imposition. Citing judicial precedents, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, directing the deletion of the penalty.

Relevance of Quantum Addition Confirmation to Penalty Imposition and Jurisdictional High Court's Judgments:
Although the Tribunal upheld the quantum addition, it clarified that penalty imposition does not automatically follow the confirmation of additions. The Tribunal analyzed the penalty notice under section 274 of the Act and noted the lack of specificity regarding the penalty imposition limb. By referring to the judgments of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court and the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, the Tribunal concluded that the penalty should be deleted due to the defective penalty notice and inconsistent approach by the AO. The Tribunal emphasized the need to follow the law as approved by the jurisdictional High Court.

This detailed analysis covers the issues of penalty imposition under section 271(1)(c), inconsistency in the AO's approach, failure to specify the charge for penalty initiation and imposition, relevance of quantum addition confirmation to penalty imposition, applicability of Explanation-1 to Sec.271(1)(c), interpretation of penalty notice under section 274 of the Act, judicial precedents, and the significance of jurisdictional High Court's judgments in the context of the legal judgment delivered by the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi.