2015 (11) TMI 1620 - HC - Income Tax

Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) Quashed Due to Invalid Notice Lacking Specific Limb Reference

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE AND THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6 (3), BANGALORE Versus M/s SSA’S EMERALD MEADOWS

The HC upheld the Tribunal's decision allowing the assessee's appeal against the penalty under s. 271(1)(c). The notice issued by the AO was held invalid ... Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Concealment of income - validity of notice - retrospective effect - Held that:- Tribunal has correctly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee holding the notice issued by the Assessing Officer under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)( c) to be bad in law as it did not specify which limb of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty proceedings had been initiated i.e., whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The Tribunal, while allowing the appeal of the assessee, has relied on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in the case of MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY [2013 (7) TMI 620 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT]. Thus since the matter is covered by judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, we are of the opinion no substantial question of law arises - Decided in favour of assessee. Issues involved:1. Proper specification of penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act.2. Validity of penalty notice under Section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) after retrospective amendment.3. Consideration of assessment order in penalty appeals.Analysis:Issue 1: Proper specification of penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c)The appeal raised the question of whether the omission by the assessing officer to explicitly mention the reason for initiating penalty proceedings, i.e., for furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment of income, renders the penalty order liable for cancellation. The Tribunal allowed the appeal by the assessee, citing that the notice issued did not specify the exact reason for initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal relied on a previous judgment of the Division Bench in a similar case. The High Court, in line with the Division Bench's decision, concluded that since the matter was already covered by a previous judgment, no substantial question of law arose for determination. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.Issue 2: Validity of penalty notice under Section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) after retrospective amendmentThe second issue revolved around the validity of the penalty notice under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, especially after an amendment to Section 271(1B) with retrospective effect. The Tribunal questioned the validity of the penalty notice despite the retrospective amendment and the assessing officer's satisfaction for initiating the penalty. However, the High Court did not delve deeply into this issue as it found the matter already settled by a previous Division Bench judgment, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.Issue 3: Consideration of assessment order in penalty appealsLastly, the Tribunal's decision to base its judgment on the notice issued under Section 274 without taking into account the assessment order was challenged. The assessing officer had specified that the assessee had concealed particulars of income. However, the Tribunal's decision was influenced by the lack of specific mention in the notice regarding the nature of the penalty proceedings. The High Court, aligning with the Division Bench's precedent, upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing the importance of proper specification in penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed based on the settled legal position established by the previous judgment.