2023 (4) TMI 689 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Defective notice u/s 274 - additions for unexplained cash credit and commission @ 5% - HELD THAT - As we note that the notice is an omnibus notice without specifying the specific charge upon the assessee and in such circumstances, Higher Courts have held that penalty levied is not sustainable. As decided in the case of Mr. Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh 2021 (3) TMI 608 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT wherein it has been held that no specification of charge in the penalty notice leads to same becoming void and penalty on that count is to be deleted. Thus due to defect in the penalty notice, penalty is not sustainable, hence the same is quashed. Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
The appeal challenges the imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act on the grounds of defective penalty notice and lack of specificity in the charge.

Issue 1: Defective Penalty Notice
The appellant contested the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, arguing that the notice was vague and non-communicative as it did not specify the precise default, rendering it defective. The appellant claimed that the penalty notice lacked specificity in terms of the charge, making it non-speaking and defeating the purpose of the notice. The appellant further contended that the penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer was arbitrary and unjust, lacking a basis for levying the penalty amount. The contention was that the penalty notice did not adequately inform the appellant of the grounds for the penalty proceedings, violating the statutory requirement for specificity. The Tribunal noted that an omnibus notice without specifying the specific charge upon the assessee renders the penalty unsustainable, citing relevant case law to support this position. Following the precedent set by higher courts, the Tribunal quashed the penalty due to the defect in the penalty notice, thereby not delving into the merits of the case.

Issue 2: Lack of Specificity in Charge
The appellant raised concerns regarding the lack of specificity in the penalty notice, arguing that the notice did not specify the charge under which the penalty proceedings were initiated. The appellant emphasized that the penalty notice must inform the assessee of the grounds for the penalty proceedings through a statutory notice. The Tribunal referenced judgments by the jurisdictional High Court, highlighting that a penalty notice must specify the limb of Section 271(1)(c) under which the penalty proceedings are initiated, whether for concealment of income particulars or furnishing inaccurate income particulars. The Tribunal, in line with the established legal precedent, concluded that the penalty was not sustainable due to the defect in the notice, leading to the quashing of the penalty. The Tribunal's decision was guided by the requirement for specificity in penalty notices as mandated by the law and judicial interpretations.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, quashing the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act due to the defective penalty notice that lacked specificity in terms of the charge. The Tribunal's decision was based on the legal principle that an omnibus notice without specifying the charge renders the penalty unsustainable, as established by relevant case law and precedents. The Tribunal's ruling focused on upholding the statutory requirement for specificity in penalty notices to ensure fair and informed penalty proceedings.