2016 (3) TMI 1276 - AT - Income Tax

Appeal allowed due to penalty notice ambiguity.

The tribunal allowed the appeal filed against the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, finding that the Assessing Officer did not specify ... Levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Held that:- On perusal of the said notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s 271 of the Act, we find, the applicable limb of clause-(c) of section 271(1) of the Act ie “furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income” or “concealment of income” is kept blank by the AO while issuing the notice. In such circumstances, the ratio laid down in the judgment of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory (2013 (7) TMI 620 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT) is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. Accordingly, in our opinion this not a fit case to levy penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and therefore, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed. Issues:Levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act based on inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income.Analysis:The appeal was filed against the order of the CIT (A) confirming the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The appellant raised multiple grounds challenging the levy of penalty, arguing that there was no material to show that the sale of shares was bogus or that income was concealed. The appellant contended that cross-examination of the broker was crucial, and the CIT (A) erred in not granting this opportunity. The appellant also highlighted that the broker had only issued bills and contracts without delivering the shares, emphasizing the lack of evidence supporting the penalty imposition.The counsel for the assessee referenced previous decisions of the ITAT and a judgment of the Karnataka High Court to support the argument that the penalty under section 271(1)(c) is unsustainable if the Assessing Officer (AO) is unclear about whether it pertains to inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income. It was noted that the AO left the relevant columns blank in the notice issued under section 274 read with section 271 of the Act. By citing the judgment of the Karnataka High Court, the counsel highlighted the importance of clarity in specifying the grounds for penalty imposition.After hearing both parties and examining the orders of the Revenue Authorities along with the cited judgment of the Karnataka High Court, the tribunal found that the AO did not specify whether the penalty was for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income in the notice. As per the precedent set by the Karnataka High Court, the tribunal concluded that this ambiguity rendered the penalty imposition invalid. Therefore, the tribunal allowed the grounds raised by the assessee, leading to the appeal being allowed. The judgment was pronounced in favor of the assessee on 18th March 2016.