2021 (7) TMI 1226 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) - Non specification of specific charge - irrelevant portion in the notices were not striked off and contended that such a levy of penalty was void ab initio and requested to be deleted - additions pertain to bank deposits and deduction claimed u/s. 80C - HELD THAT - CIT(A) had observed that the A.O. records satisfaction for imposition of penalty was for concealment of income, however, he omitted to strike off the irrelevant part of the blank printed format notice u/s. 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) and thus without striking off the irrelevant portion in the notice contemplates in vitiating the penalty proceedings. The admitted fact that the A.O. has issued blank printed format notices, without striking off irrelevant portion u/s. 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) duly signed under its signature. We understand that the A.O. while issuing Notice under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is under statutory obligation that the assessee must be informed of the grounds of the penalty proceedings only through statutory notice. These notices primarily suffered from ambiguity and the vice of vagueness, thus, vitiated the penalty proceeding. Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Challenging the confirmation of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) by CIT(A) due to lack of specificity in penalty notices.

Analysis:
The appellant challenged the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) for concealment of income, arguing that the penalty notices did not specify the specific charge against the assessee. The appellant contended that the notices were void ab initio as they did not clearly state the charge, making the levy of penalty unjustified. The appellant cited various judgments, including the case of CIT vs. S.S.A. Emerald Meadows, to support the argument that the lack of specificity in the notice vitiates the penalty proceedings.

The counsel for the appellant emphasized the distinction between assessment proceedings and penalty proceedings, asserting that penalty proceedings are independent and separate. It was argued that the blank printed format notices issued by the Assessing Officer did not clearly mention the specific charge or section under which the penalty was imposed. The appellant relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Moh. Farhan A. Shaikh vs. DCIT to highlight that any defect in the notice, such as not striking off irrelevant matter, could invalidate the penalty proceedings.

The Appellate Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer issued blank printed format notices without striking off irrelevant portions, leading to ambiguity and vagueness in the penalty proceedings. Citing the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Moh. Farhan A. Shaikh, the Tribunal held that the assessee must be informed of the grounds of the penalty proceedings through a statutory notice. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of precise communication to avoid ambiguity, stating that the failure to delete inapplicable portions of a notice betrays non-application of mind.

Based on the principles laid down in the judgments cited and considering the ambiguity in the penalty notices, the Tribunal deleted the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) for all the assessment years under appeal. The Tribunal's decision was in line with the requirement of clear communication in penalty proceedings and the precedent set by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court. The bunch of appeals filed by the assessee was allowed, and the penalty was deleted for all the relevant assessment years.