2022 (11) TMI 11 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Validity of notice has been passed u/s 274 - HELD THAT - As could be seen from the above the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Full Bench at Goa) in the case of Mr. Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh 2021 (3) TMI 608 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT while dealing with the issue of non-strike off of the irrelevant part in the notice issued u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, held that assessee must be informed of the grounds of the penalty proceedings only through statutory notice and an omnibus notice suffers from the vice of vagueness. Ratio of this full bench decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Goa) squarely applies to the facts of the assessee's case as the notice u/s. 274 r.w.s. 271(l)(c) of the Act were issued without striking off the irrelevant portion of the limb and failed to intimate the assessee the relevant limb and charge for which the notices were issued. We are of the opinion that, the penalty order passed u/s 271(1)(c) by the AO and the order of the CIT(A) in confirming the penalty order are erroneous. Accordingly, the penalty order dated 01/03/2017 passed by the A.O for Assessment Year 2011-12 is hereby quashed. Accordingly, Assessee s Grounds of Appeal are allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of penalty notice under section 274 and order passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act.
2. Imposition of penalty by a different Assessing Officer than the one who initiated the penalty.
3. Justification for penalty imposition in the case.
4. Compliance with statutory requirements in penalty proceedings.

Issue 1: Validity of penalty notice under section 274 and order passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act:

The appeal was filed against the order passed by the CIT(A)-33, Delhi for Assessment Year 2011-12. The grounds of appeal challenged the initiation of penalty without specific charges under section 274 and the subsequent order under section 271(1)(c). The notice issued under section 274 did not specify the charge for which it was issued, leading to a challenge of the legality and jurisdiction of the penalty proceedings. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Full Bench at Goa) decision in the case of Mr. Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh v. ACIT clarified that an omnibus notice without striking off irrelevant portions is vague and suffers from the vice of vagueness. The judgment emphasized that the assessee must be informed of the grounds of penalty proceedings through a specific statutory notice. As the notice in this case failed to specify the charge, the penalty order was deemed erroneous, and the penalty was quashed.

Issue 2: Imposition of penalty by a different Assessing Officer than the one who initiated the penalty:

The appellant contended that the penalty was imposed by an Assessing Officer other than the one who initiated the penalty, questioning the jurisdiction and legality of the penalty order. However, the argument was not the primary focus of the judgment, as the main issue revolved around the validity of the penalty notice and order. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court's decision highlighted the importance of a clear and specific notice in penalty proceedings, which was the central point in determining the legality of the penalty imposed.

Issue 3: Justification for penalty imposition in the case:

The penalty proceedings were initiated based on disallowance of professional charges and compensation paid, leading to the imposition of a penalty at 100% on the tax to be evaded. The appellant challenged the penalty order on the grounds of procedural irregularities and lack of specific charges in the notice. The arguments presented by both parties focused on the procedural aspects of the penalty imposition rather than the substantive grounds for the penalty. The judgment primarily addressed the procedural deficiencies in the penalty notice and order, leading to the quashing of the penalty.

Issue 4: Compliance with statutory requirements in penalty proceedings:

The judgment emphasized the statutory requirement of a clear and specific notice under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The failure to strike off irrelevant portions in the notice and specify the charge for which the penalty was imposed rendered the penalty proceedings defective. Citing the Hon'ble Bombay High Court's decision, the tribunal held that an omnibus notice lacking specificity violates the principles of natural justice and fairness. Consequently, the penalty order dated 01/03/2017 was quashed, and the appellant's grounds of appeal were allowed, highlighting the importance of strict compliance with statutory provisions in penalty proceedings.

In conclusion, the judgment focused on the procedural irregularities in the penalty notice and order, emphasizing the necessity of a specific and clear notice to inform the assessee of the grounds for penalty imposition. The decision to quash the penalty order was based on the failure to comply with statutory requirements, as clarified by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court's ruling, ensuring fairness and adherence to procedural norms in penalty proceedings.