9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (10) TMI 515 - AT - Income TaxPenalty u/s 271(1)(c) - defective notice u/s 274 - non specification of clear charge - non-striking off of the inappropriate words in notice HELD THAT - As inappropriate words in the penalty notice has not been struck off and the notice does not specify as to under which limb of the provisions, the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) has been initiated, therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) is not sustainable and has to be deleted. Although the Ld. DR submitted that mere non-striking off of the inappropriate words will not invalidate the penalty proceedings, however, the decision of the Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case of SSA S Emerald Meadows 2015 (11) TMI 1620 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT where the SLP filed 2016 (8) TMI 1145 - SC ORDER by the Revenue has been dismissed is directly on the issue contested herein by the Assessee. Further, when the notice is not mentioning the concealment or the furnishing of inaccurate particulars, the ratio laid down by the Hon ble High Court in case of M/s. Sahara India Life Insurance Company Ltd. 2019 (8) TMI 409 - DELHI HIGH COURT will be applicable in the present case. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues:
1. Levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act without specifying the charge. 2. Confirmation of penalty by CIT(A) despite lack of specificity in the notice. 3. Imposition of penalty for concealment of income and inaccurate particulars. 4. Sustainment of penalty for addition under Section 68. 5. Compliance with principles of natural justice in penalty proceedings. Analysis: 1. The appeal challenged the penalty order imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act without specific charges mentioned. The Assessing Officer did not specify whether the penalty was initiated for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The absence of a clear charge in the notice and penalty order rendered the penalty unsustainable as per judicial precedents cited by the appellant. 2. The CIT(A) upheld the penalty despite the lack of specificity in the notice issued under Section 274 of the Act. The appellant argued that without a specific charge, the penalty could not be levied as the penalty provision is quasi-judicial. Citing relevant case laws, the appellant contended that the absence of a clear charge invalidated the penalty order, emphasizing the need for a specific charge for a valid penalty. 3. The penalty was confirmed for concealing income and furnishing inaccurate particulars, leading to the imposition of a penalty of ?7,17,500 under Section 68. The appellant argued that the onus placed on them was discharged, making the penalty unjustified. The CIT(A) decision was challenged based on the lack of incriminating material and the inadequacy of the penalty grounds. 4. The penalty was sustained for the addition of ?20 lakh under Section 68, despite the appellant's assertions that the onus was fulfilled. The CIT(A) decision was disputed on the grounds of lack of sustainability of the addition and the failure to consider the appellant's compliance with the requirements. 5. The issue of compliance with principles of natural justice in penalty proceedings was raised, emphasizing the necessity of a specific charge for a valid penalty. Citing relevant judgments, the appellant contended that the penalty notice's lack of clarity rendered the penalty unsustainable. The Tribunal, after considering the arguments and precedents, allowed the appeal, setting aside the penalty and directing the Assessing Officer to cancel the penalty levied. In conclusion, the Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not sustainable due to the absence of a specific charge in the notice, following the principles of natural justice and judicial precedents. The appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the penalty was set aside.
|
