9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (2) TMI 251 - AT - Income TaxPenalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Defective notice u/s 274 - non Specifying the default for which the Assessee is charged u/s 271(1)(c) - HELD THAT - In the instant case, the AO initiated the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of Income and thereafter issued the notice referred to above u/s 274 read with 271(1)(c) of the Act without specifying any particular limb of the penalty and finally imposed the penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Manjunatha Cotton Ginning Factory 2013 (7) TMI 620 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT observed where the Assessing Officer proposed to invoke first limb being concealment, then the notice has to be appropriately marked. The Hon'ble High Court also held that the standard proforma of notice under section 274 of the Act without striking of the irrelevant clause would lead to an inference of non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer and levy of penalty would suffers from non-application of mind. Thus having regard to the manner in which the Assessing Officer has issued the notice referred above under section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act without specifying the limb under which the penalty proceeding has been initiated and proceeded with, apparently goes to prove that notice in this case has been issued in a stereotyped manner without applying mind which are bad in law, hence cannot be considered valid notice sufficient to impose penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and therefore we are of the considered view that under these circumstances, the penalty is not leviable - Decided in favour of assesee.
Issues Involved:
- Appeal against penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. - Validity of the notice issued by the Assessing Officer under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act. - Whether penalty is leviable based on a notice that does not specify the particular limb of the penalty. - Legal interpretation of penalty provisions under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Analysis: Issue 1: Appeal against Penalty Imposed under Section 271(1)(c) The Assessee appealed against the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The penalty was imposed by the Assessing Officer for a transaction treated as a slump sale under Section 50B of the Act, resulting in the Assessee being charged with undisclosed income. The Assessee challenged the penalty before the Commissioner, who affirmed the levy, leading to the appeal before the Tribunal. Issue 2: Validity of Notice Issued by the Assessing Officer The primary contention raised by the Assessee was the validity of the notice issued by the Assessing Officer under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Assessee argued that the notice was vague and did not specify the particular limb of the penalty being imposed. The Assessee relied on various judgments, including those of the Honorable Apex Court and High Courts, to support the argument that a notice lacking specificity is illegal and renders the penalty not leviable. Issue 3: Leviability of Penalty Based on Notice Specificity The Tribunal emphasized the importance of specifying the relevant limb under section 271(1)(c) of the Act when initiating penalty proceedings. Citing legal precedents, including judgments from the Honorable Karnataka High Court and the Honorable High Court of Delhi, the Tribunal highlighted that a notice failing to specify the limb of penalty initiation indicates non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal concluded that such notices are bad in law and cannot be considered valid for imposing penalties under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Issue 4: Legal Interpretation of Penalty Provisions The Tribunal reiterated that the penalty provisions under section 271(1)(c) of the Act apply when an Assessee conceals particulars of income or furnishes inaccurate particulars. It underscored the necessity for the Assessing Officer to specify the relevant limb of the penalty to inform the Assessee of the charges against them adequately. The Tribunal, aligning with previous court decisions, including the Honorable Apex Court, held that penalties cannot be levied based on notices lacking specificity regarding the limb of penalty initiation. In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the Assessee's appeal, emphasizing that the penalty was not leviable due to the invalidity of the notice issued by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal deleted the penalty considering the legal position and precedents established by various courts, including the Honorable Apex Court. The decision was based on the principle that penalties under section 271(1)(c) of the Act require clear specification of the limb of penalty initiation to ensure fairness and compliance with legal standards.
|
