2023 (2) TMI 570 - AT - Income Tax

Levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Defective notice u/s 274 - HELD THAT - The statutory notices did not provide the ground on which the penalty proceeding was initiated whether the penalty was sought to be levied for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or for concealment of income. In the case Mohd. Farhan A Shaikh Vs. DCIT 2021 (3) TMI 608 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT the full Bench of the Hon ble Bombay High Court has held that a mere defect in the notice - not striking off the irrelevant matter, would vitiate the penalty proceedings. Thus the penalty proceedings stand vitiated on account of defect in the penalty notices, issued under Section 271(1)(c) read with Section 274 of the Act. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Appeals challenging penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Year 2002-03.

Analysis:
1. The appeals were filed by four different assessees against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dismissing their appeals against the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The appeals were heard together due to identical issues. The lead matter was the appeal by Mr. Hasmukh I. Gandhi as the legal heir of Late Shri Nirav Gandhi.

2. The Assessee raised grounds challenging the sustaining of the penalty under Section 271(1)(c). An additional ground was raised questioning the validity of the penalty notice for not specifying whether the penalty was for concealing income or furnishing inaccurate particulars.

3. During the hearing, the Assessee's Authorized Representative requested admission of the additional ground, arguing it was legal in nature and did not require new facts. The Revenue's Counsel opposed, citing a delay in raising the ground and lack of reasons for the delay.

4. The Tribunal admitted the additional ground based on the Supreme Court's observation that the Tribunal's power is not restricted to grounds arising from the Commissioner's order. The additional ground challenged the validity of penalty notices.

5. After considering submissions and examining the penalty notices and order, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's contention that the case was distinguishable from precedent cases. The Tribunal referred to a Bombay High Court judgment stating that a defect in the notice could vitiate penalty proceedings.

6. The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were vitiated due to defects in the penalty notices and set aside the penalty order. The additional ground raised by the Assessee was allowed, leading to the allowance of all four appeals.

7. The Tribunal concluded that since the issues and facts in all four appeals were identical, the reasoning applied to the lead matter would be adopted for all appeals, resulting in the allowance of all four appeals.

8. In conclusion, all four appeals challenging penalties under Section 271(1)(c) for the Assessment Year 2002-03 were allowed, with the penalty order being set aside due to defects in the penalty notices.