9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (12) TMI 599 - AT - Income TaxLevy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - addition u/s.68 - concealment of particulars of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income - Defective notice - non specification of notice - HELD THAT - It is clear that for the AO to assume jurisdiction u/s 271(1)(c), proper notice is necessary and the defect in notice u/s 274 vitiates the assumption of jurisdiction by the learned AO to levy any penalty. In this case, clearly establish that the notice issued under section 274 read with 271 of the Act is defective and, therefore, we find it difficult to hold that the AO rightly assumed jurisdiction to pass the order levying the penalty. We direct the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c). - Appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Issues Involved:
Levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 based on concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Levy of Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) The primary issue in this case revolves around the imposition of a penalty of ?5,00,000 under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings due to the assessee's inability to explain the source of share capital introduced, resulting in an addition under section 68 of the Act. The penalty was imposed on the grounds of concealing particulars of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. However, the notice issued did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars, leading to a challenge by the assessee before the Tribunal. Issue 2: Contention of the Assessee The assessee argued that the penalty order lacked clarity on the specific grounds for penalty imposition, as the notice did not specify whether it was for concealing particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Citing the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the assessee contended that penalty proceedings must align with the grounds specified in the notice. The mere disallowance of a claim, according to the assessee, should not warrant a penalty. Issue 3: Response of the Revenue The Senior DR supported the penalty order, emphasizing that the notice's lack of specificity did not prejudice the assessee as they understood the essence of the notice. Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court, the Senior DR argued that the penalty imposition was valid even without explicit mention in the notice, as long as the assessee comprehended the grounds for penalty. Issue 4: Tribunal's Decision After considering the arguments and legal precedents, the Tribunal found in favor of the assessee. Citing the decisions of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Tribunal concluded that the defective notice issued under section 274 read with section 271 of the Act rendered the assumption of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer to levy the penalty invalid. As the notice did not specify the grounds under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c). In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, emphasizing the importance of a clear and specific notice in penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This detailed analysis highlights the key legal arguments, precedents cited, and the Tribunal's decision regarding the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) in the given judgment.
|
