9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (2) TMI 578 - AT - Income TaxPenalty u/s 271(1)(c) - assessee by filing incorrect computation of income on MAT u/s 115JB - HELD THAT - As decided by CIT-A AO has not mentioned either in notice u/s 271(l)(c) or in assessment order as to whether it is a case of concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. In view of the above findings of CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton Ginning Factory 2013 (7) TMI 620 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT and M/s Sahara India Life Insurance Co. Ltd 2019 (8) TMI 409 - DELHI HIGH COURT the penalty order is not sustainable in the eyes of the law - Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
Issues:
- Deletion of penalty by the CIT(A) despite incorrect MAT income filing - Non-reliance on penalty notice and order by the CIT(A) - Absence of the assessee during the proceedings - Justification for deleting the penalty by the CIT(A) - Legal principles regarding penalty initiation and assessment proceedings Deletion of Penalty: The Revenue appealed against the deletion of a penalty of Rs. 1,39,31,919 imposed on the assessee for incorrect MAT income filing. The CIT(A) deleted the penalty based on a technicality, as the penalty notice did not specify whether it was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The Karnataka High Court precedent was cited, emphasizing that penalty cannot be initiated for both charges simultaneously. The Delhi High Court also supported this view. The Revenue failed to rebut this finding, leading to the affirmation of the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the penalty. Non-Reliance on Penalty Notice and Order: The Revenue argued that the CIT(A) erred by not relying on the penalty notice and order issued to the assessee. However, the CIT(A) justified the deletion of the penalty based on the lack of specificity in the penalty proceedings regarding the nature of the offense. The legal principle of natural justice requiring the assessee to know the grounds for penalty imposition was upheld, following the Karnataka High Court's ruling. Absence of the Assessee: During the proceedings, the assessee was absent, with no representation since June 29, 2022. Despite the lack of participation, the appeal was heard in the absence of the assessee, and the decision was made based on the arguments presented by the Revenue. Justification for Penalty Deletion: The CIT(A) justified the deletion of the penalty by emphasizing the importance of clearly stating the grounds for penalty imposition. The absence of specific mention in the penalty notice and assessment order regarding the nature of the offense led to the penalty being deemed unsustainable in the eyes of the law. The Revenue's failure to provide evidence or rebut the CIT(A)'s decision resulted in the affirmation of the penalty deletion. Legal Principles Regarding Penalty Initiation: The judgment highlighted the legal principles established by the Karnataka High Court and supported by the Delhi High Court regarding penalty initiation under Section 271(l)(c) of the Income Tax Act. It emphasized the need for specificity in the penalty notice to ensure natural justice and prevent penalties from being imposed on vague or ambiguous grounds. The CIT(A)'s decision to delete the penalty was in line with these legal principles, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal. Overall, the judgment focused on upholding procedural fairness and legal clarity in penalty proceedings, ultimately resulting in the deletion of the penalty imposed on the assessee.
|
