2024 (12) TMI 1389 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - unexplained cash credit addition u/s 68 for want of supporting documentary evidences - HELD THAT - Assessee did offer an explanation which has been found bona fide, and the addition was partly restricted due to a lack of supporting documentary evidences. Such explanation was not found to be false or bogus. Non recording of satisfaction - Penalty order is devoid of satisfaction regarding the applicability of specific limb of section 271(1)(c), which is a prerequisite for levy of penalty. It is beyond comprehension that as to the non compliance of PAN or filing of return of income attract penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Non specification of clear charge - Penalty order is conspicuously absent about the particular limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act under the aegis of which penalty is levied. It is excruciating to note that while calculating penalty concealed income has, for the first time, brought on record. But the satisfaction in the order which is of prime importance is altogether absent. The impugned order passed by the learned CIT(A) has merely echoed the order passed by the AO and the same ergo is fit to be jettisoned, thus provisions of section 271(1)(c) are not attracted in this case - Decided in favour of assessee.

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The legal judgment involves several core issues:

Whether the order passed by the learned CIT(A) under section 250 of the Income Tax Act is legally valid.
Whether the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act.
Whether the notice for penalty under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) was vague and defective.
Whether the assessee's explanation regarding cash deposits was adequately considered.
Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Validity of the Order by CIT(A)

Legal Framework: Section 250 of the Income Tax Act provides the framework for appeals to the CIT(A).
Court's Interpretation: The Tribunal examined whether the CIT(A) followed due process and considered all relevant materials.
Key Findings: The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not adequately address the defects in the penalty notice.
Conclusion: The order by the CIT(A) was found lacking in addressing the core issues raised by the assessee.

Issue 2: Penalty under Section 271(1)(c)

Legal Framework: Section 271(1)(c) deals with penalties for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars.
Court's Interpretation: The Tribunal emphasized the necessity for clear specification of the limb under which penalty is levied.
Key Findings: The penalty order did not specify whether it was for concealment or inaccurate particulars.
Conclusion: The penalty was deemed unjustified due to lack of clarity and specification.

Issue 3: Defectiveness of the Penalty Notice

Legal Framework: Section 274 requires a clear notice specifying the charge.
Court's Interpretation: Citing precedents, the Tribunal highlighted the importance of specificity in penalty notices.
Key Findings: The notice was found vague, as it did not specify the charge, rendering it defective.
Conclusion: The defectiveness of the notice invalidated the penalty proceedings.

Issue 4: Consideration of Assessee's Explanation

Legal Framework: The assessee is entitled to provide an explanation for cash deposits.
Court's Interpretation: The Tribunal found that the explanation was bona fide and partially accepted by the AO.
Key Findings: The CIT(A) did not adequately consider the explanation provided by the assessee.
Conclusion: The explanation was deemed sufficient to avoid penalty.

Issue 5: Condonation of Delay

Legal Framework: Appeals can be admitted after the prescribed period if sufficient cause for delay is shown.
Court's Interpretation: The Tribunal accepted the reasons for delay as genuine and unintentional.
Key Findings: The delay was due to procedural issues and lack of documentation.
Conclusion: The delay was condoned, allowing the appeal to be heard on merits.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

Core Principles Established:

"Penalty will not also be imposed merely because it is lawful to do so. Whether penalty should be imposed for failure to perform a statutory obligation is a matter of discretion of the authority to be exercised judicially and on a consideration of all the relevant circumstances."
"S.271(1)(c): Penalty Concealment - Non-striking off of the irrelevant part while issuing notice under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, Order is bad in law - Assessee must be informed of the grounds of the penalty proceedings-only through statutory notice. An omnibus notice suffers from the vice of vagueness."

Final Determinations:

The penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) was directed to be deleted due to lack of specificity and clarity in the penalty notice.
The order by the CIT(A) was set aside as it did not adequately address the issues raised by the assessee.
The delay in filing the appeal was condoned, allowing the appeal to proceed on merits.

← Previous Next →