2025 (3) TMI 800 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271AAB - seized cash during the course of search conducted in his group of cases - allegation of non specification of clear charge - HELD THAT - We find no reasons to hold the impugned penalty. This is for the precise reasons that learned coordinate bench has already distinguished Pr. CIT vs Sandeep Chandak 2017 (12) TMI 70 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT and that the case law quoted by the Revenue i.e Veena Estate Pvt. Ltd 2024 (1) TMI 701 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT is found not to have dealt with the specific issue of a search penalty u/s 271AAB as is the case before us. We further reiterate that the main appeal before the hon ble Bombay high court is still pending for final adjudication thereof. Be that as it may we conclude that given the fact that AO s not having satisfied the corresponding limb u/s 271AAB hereinabove the impugned penalty deserves to be deleted only. Assessee appeal allowed.

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal issues considered in this judgment are:

Whether the penalty proceedings under Section 271AAB of the Income-tax Act, 1961, are valid when the notice issued under Section 274 does not specify the relevant limb of Section 271AAB.
Whether the Assessing Officer's failure to specify the limb of Section 271AAB under which the penalty is being levied renders the penalty proceedings invalid.
The impact of precedents and judicial interpretations on the validity of penalty notices under Section 271AAB.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Defective Notice under Section 274:

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 271AAB of the Income-tax Act mandates a penalty for undisclosed income discovered during a search. However, Section 274 requires that a notice be issued to the assessee, providing a reasonable opportunity to be heard. The notice must specify the charge against the assessee. Precedents such as the judgments in Shri Vivek Chugh and DCIT vs R. Elangovan have established that a vague or non-specific notice is defective and invalid.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal emphasized that the notice under Section 274 must clearly convey the specific charge under Section 271AAB, whether it is for non-disclosure, concealment, or any other specific offense. The failure to specify the charge violates the principles of natural justice, as it does not provide the assessee a fair opportunity to defend themselves.
Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal noted that the notice issued to the assessee did not specify the relevant clause (a, b, or c) of Section 271AAB, making it defective. The Tribunal referenced similar cases where penalties were quashed due to defective notices.
Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied the legal principles established in previous cases to the facts at hand, concluding that the notice's lack of specificity rendered the penalty proceedings invalid.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Department argued that the penalty was automatic upon discovery of undisclosed income and cited the case of Pr. CIT vs Sandeep Chandak. However, the Tribunal found that this case was distinguishable and not applicable to the specific issue of search penalties under Section 271AAB. The Tribunal also noted that the case of Veena Estate (P.) Ltd. did not address the specific issue at hand.
Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the defective notice under Section 274, which did not specify the relevant limb of Section 271AAB, invalidated the penalty proceedings. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

Preserve Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning: "The notice under section 274 should be clear enough to convey the assessee about the charge which is to be leveled against him/her/it for levying the penalty for the contravention of the related provisions of the Act."
Core Principles Established: The principle that a notice under Section 274 must specify the charge under Section 271AAB to be valid was reinforced. This ensures compliance with the principles of natural justice by providing the assessee a fair opportunity to respond to the specific allegations.
Final Determinations on Each Issue: The Tribunal determined that the penalty proceedings were vitiated due to the defective notice, leading to the deletion of the penalty imposed on the assessee.

← Previous Next →