9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (7) TMI 665 - AT - Income TaxPenalty u/s 271(1)(c) - defective notice u/s 274 - Non specification of charge - HELD THAT - Notice issued by the Assessing Officer would be bad in law if it did not specify under which limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act the penalty proceedings had been initiated i.e., whether for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars thereof. AO to assume jurisdiction u/s 271(1)(c), proper notice is necessary and the defect in notice u/s 274 of the Act vitiates the assumption of jurisdiction by the learned Assessing Officer to levy any penalty. In this case, facts stated 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 learned AO rightly assumed jurisdiction to pass the order levying the penalty. As a consequence of our findings above, we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty in question. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues:
Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) - Validity of penalty notice - Defect in notice specifying charge - Assessee's representation - Jurisdiction of Assessing Officer - Deletion of penalty. Analysis: 1. Validity of Penalty Notice: The appeal revolved around the validity of the penalty notice issued under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act. The appellant contested the penalty order, arguing that the Assessing Officer failed to specify the relevant charge of "concealment" or "inaccurate particulars" in both the assessment order and the penalty notice, rendering the notice vague. Citing legal precedents, including decisions by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court and the jurisdictional High Court, the appellant contended that the penalty could not be sustained due to the defective notice. 2. Assessee's Representation: Despite the absence of representation from the assessee during the proceedings, the Tribunal noted that the notice was sent to the address provided by the assessee. The Tribunal highlighted that non-service of notice was solely due to the conduct of the assessee. In such circumstances, the Tribunal proceeded to decide the appeal based on the available record, emphasizing the importance of proper representation and service of notices. 3. Jurisdiction of Assessing Officer: The Tribunal analyzed legal precedents, such as the decisions of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court and the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, which emphasized that the notice issued by the Assessing Officer must specify under which limb of section 271(1)(c) the penalty proceedings were initiated, i.e., for concealment of income particulars or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal concluded that the defective notice vitiates the assumption of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer to levy any penalty, directing the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty in question. 4. Deletion of Penalty: Based on the findings regarding the defective notice and the lack of proper specification of the charge in the penalty notice, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee. The Tribunal's decision to delete the penalty was grounded in the legal principles established by previous judgments, ensuring that the penalty imposition was in line with the grounds on which the assessee was called upon to answer. 5. Conclusion: The Tribunal's detailed analysis of the legal aspects surrounding the penalty notice, representation of the assessee, and the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer culminated in the deletion of the penalty imposed on the assessee. The judgment emphasized the necessity of a valid notice specifying the charge under which penalty proceedings are initiated, ensuring fairness and adherence to natural justice principles in penalty imposition. This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the key legal issues addressed by the Tribunal, providing a detailed understanding of the reasoning behind the decision to delete the penalty imposed on the assessee.
|
