9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (4) TMI 1314 - AT - Income TaxLevy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Non specification of clear charge - defective notice u/s 274 - whether the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act has been levied for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income? - HELD THAT - We find that Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Sahara India Life Insurance Co. Ltd. 2019 (8) TMI 409 - DELHI HIGH COURT after considering the decision in the case of CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton Ginning Factory 2013 (7) TMI 620 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT CIT vs. SSA s Emerald Meadows 2016 (8) TMI 1145 - SC ORDER has held that penalty under Section 271(l)(c) was not leviable when the notice issued by Assessing Officer did not specify as to whether the proceedings were initiated for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. We accordingly set aside the levy of penalty levied by Assessing Officer and that was confirmed by the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals). Thus, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed.
Issues:
Levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 based on revised return of income filed by a non-resident individual for A.Y. 2015-16. Analysis: The case involved a non-resident individual who initially declared a total income of Rs. NIL for the relevant assessment year but later revised the return to declare a total income of Rs. 1,17,00,870. The Assessing Officer (A.O.) accepted the revised income but levied a penalty of Rs. 26,51,420 under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The penalty was upheld by the Ld. CIT(A), leading to an appeal before the Tribunal. The primary contention raised by the assessee was that the penalty was unjustified as there was no concealment of income, and the revised return was filed within the prescribed time to rectify a bona fide mistake. The assessee argued that the investment in Mutual Funds, instead of a capital gain saving scheme account, was due to a lack of awareness about the specific requirements under the law. The Tribunal noted that the show cause notice issued by the A.O. did not specify whether the penalty was imposed for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Citing relevant legal precedents, including the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and the Full Bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, the Tribunal held that such notices without clear specification were invalid. As a result, the Tribunal set aside the penalty imposed by the A.O. and upheld by the Ld. CIT(A). The Tribunal emphasized the importance of precise notices in penalty proceedings to avoid ambiguity and ensure fairness. It highlighted that the failure to strike off inapplicable portions in the notice indicated a lack of application of mind by the Assessing Officer. The decision was based on the principles established in legal judgments, and the Tribunal found no justification for the penalty under section 271(1)(c) in this case. In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the Assessee, setting aside the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The judgment was pronounced on 27.04.2022, emphasizing the significance of clear and precise notices in penalty proceedings to uphold principles of natural justice and procedural fairness.
|
