2023 (11) TMI 867 - HC - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Defective notice u/s 274 - non specification of clear charge - HELD THAT - The record shows, and something that is not in dispute, is that the Assessing officer (AO) had not indicated, with clarity, the ground on which penalty had been levied i.e., on account of concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Thus, according to the Tribunal, this issue already stood covered against the appellant/revenue in several judgments. No substantial question of law.

Summary

Issues involved: Condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal, Correct imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Condonation of Delay:
An application was filed seeking condonation of a 220-day delay in re-filing the appeal. The respondent had no objection to condoning the delay, and the application was disposed of accordingly.

Imposition of Penalty under Section 271(1)(c):
The appeal concerned Assessment Year 2004-05 and aimed to challenge the order and corrigendum issued by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer had not clearly indicated the grounds for the penalty, whether for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal referred to previous judgments where the issue was decided against the appellant/revenue. Consequently, the appeal was closed as no substantial question of law arose for consideration, similar to a previous case concerning the same Assessment Year.

Closure of the Appeal:
Given the circumstances and the lack of a substantial question of law, the appeal was closed, and parties were instructed to act based on the digitally signed copy of the order.