2018 (2) TMI 1810 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal dismisses penalty due to unclear notice, emphasizes importance of procedural fairness

ITO, Ward-1, Berhampur Versus Sri T. Biswanath Patro

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act in favor of the assessee. The penalty notice ... Penalty u/s.271(1)(c) - non specification of charge - Held that:- Omission by the AO to explicitly specify in the penalty notice as to whether penalty proceedings are being initiated for furnishing of inaccurate particulars or for concealment of income makes the penalty order liable for cancellation. CIT vs. SSA’s. Emarld Meadows [2016 (8) TMI 1145 - SUPREME COURT] followed - In the present case having regard to the manner in which the Assessing Officer has issued notice under section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) without striking off the irrelevant words, the penalty proceedings show a non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer and is, thus, unsustainable.- Decided in favour of assessee Issues Involved:Appeal against deletion of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act.Detailed Analysis:1. Issue: Deletion of Penalty- The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the order of the CIT(A) deleting the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act amounting to Rs. 29,09,417.- The main contention was that the penalty notice did not explicitly specify whether it was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, as required by law.- The Authorized Representative of the assessee cited a Supreme Court judgment in a similar case, where it was held that the omission to specify the nature of penalty proceedings makes the penalty order liable for cancellation.- The Departmental Representative could not counter this argument, leading to a lack of dispute on the facts of the case.2. Judicial Precedents and Legal Analysis- The Hon'ble Supreme Court and the High Court of Karnataka have previously addressed similar issues regarding the necessity of explicitly mentioning the nature of penalty proceedings in the notice.- The courts have emphasized that the penalty notice must clearly indicate whether it is for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income to provide the assessee with a fair opportunity to respond.- Failure to strike off the irrelevant limb in the notice leads to an inference of non-application of mind by the Assessing Officer, rendering the penalty unsustainable.- Legal precedents highlight the importance of clarity in penalty notices to ensure due process and fair treatment of the assessee.3. Decision and Rationale- The Tribunal found that the penalty notice issued in this case did not specify whether the penalty was for concealing income or furnishing inaccurate particulars, violating the assessee's right to a fair opportunity to respond.- Citing legal precedents and the Supreme Court's decision in a similar case, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act.- The Tribunal concluded that the penalty proceedings lacked proper application of mind by the Assessing Officer, making the penalty unsustainable.- Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed, confirming the deletion of the penalty by the CIT(A).4. Conclusion- The judgment underscores the significance of clarity and specificity in penalty notices under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act to ensure procedural fairness and adherence to legal requirements.- By following established legal principles and precedents, the Tribunal upheld the deletion of the penalty in this case due to the Assessing Officer's failure to specify the nature of the penalty proceedings, thereby safeguarding the assessee's rights and ensuring due process in tax penalty assessments.