2024 (7) TMI 1087 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) - non specification of clear charge - whether the assessee has concealed its particulars of income; or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income? - HELD THAT - The penalty order does not mention the specific charge of default committed by the assessee i.e. whether the assessee has concealed its particulars of income; or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. We hold that from the impugned penalty order it is not clear under which limb of section 271(1)(c) penalty was levied. There being no specific charge for levy of penalty, the penalty order is therefore, contrary to law laid downin the case of M/s Sahara India Life Insurance Company Ltd. 2019 (8) TMI 409 - DELHI HIGH COURT Accordingly, impugned penalty order passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is quashed. Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against deletion of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Challenge regarding the validity of the penalty order and admission of additional evidence.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Appeal against Deletion of Penalty
The appeal pertains to the deletion of penalty by the National Faceless Appeal Centre for the assessment year 2013-14 under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act. The Revenue raised grounds questioning the deletion of penalty and admission of additional evidence by the CIT(A). The assessee, on the other hand, argued that the penalty order was void ab initio as it did not specify under which limb of section 271(1)(c) the penalty was imposed. The Tribunal referred to the case law where it was established that the penalty notice must specify whether it is for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. As the penalty order lacked this specificity, it was deemed contrary to the law laid down by the High Court. Consequently, the Tribunal quashed the penalty order.

Issue 2: Challenge Regarding Validity of Penalty Order and Admission of Evidence
The Revenue challenged the deletion of penalty and admission of additional evidence. The assessee contended that the penalty proceedings were invalid due to the lack of specificity in the penalty notice, citing relevant case law. The Tribunal upheld the assessee's argument, following the binding precedents, and dismissed the Revenue's appeal. The Tribunal found the penalty order to be contrary to the law established by the High Court and, therefore, quashed the penalty. Consequently, the cross objection of the assessee was allowed, and the appeal of the Revenue was dismissed.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, quashing the penalty order due to the lack of specificity in specifying the grounds for penalty imposition under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act. The decision was based on established legal precedents emphasizing the necessity of clear notice specifying the nature of the default.