Appeal allowed, penalty deleted under Income Tax Act 1961

The ITAT allowed the appeal, ruling in favor of the assessee by deleting the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The ITAT found that the penalty notice lacked specificity in specifying the charge, following legal precedents emphasizing the importance of such specification. Citing decisions of the Supreme Court and Karnataka High Court, the ITAT concluded that the penalty proceedings were invalid. As a result, the penalty imposed by the AO and upheld by the ld. CIT(A) was deleted, providing relief to the assessee.

---

---

Issues:
1. Appeal against order of ld. CIT(A)-2, Jalandhar.
2. Validity of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Issue 1: Appeal against order of ld. CIT(A)-2, Jalandhar:
The appeal was filed by the assessee against the order dated 27.08.2018 of ld. CIT(A)-2, Jalandhar. The grounds raised in the appeal challenged the legality of the order, alleging errors in law and facts. The assessee contended that the Assessing Officer (AO) did not record satisfaction while issuing the penalty notice under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) partially upheld the penalty imposed by the AO, leading the assessee to challenge the decision.

Issue 2: Validity of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961:
The penalty proceedings were initiated against the assessee for concealing income and furnishing inaccurate particulars. The AO had levied a penalty of &8377; 4,72,028/-, which was reduced to &8377; 2,07,867/- by the ld. CIT(A). During the appeal, the assessee argued that the penalty notice did not specify the specific charge for which the penalty was imposed. The assessee cited various court decisions, including the ITAT Delhi Bench ruling in the case of Aman Mehtani Vs DCIT, emphasizing the importance of specifying the charge in the penalty notice.

The ITAT, considering the submissions and relevant legal precedents, observed that the Assessing Officer had not specified the charge for imposing the penalty, similar to the case adjudicated by the ITAT Delhi Bench. Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court, the ITAT concluded that the penalty proceedings were not valid due to the lack of specificity in the penalty notice. Consequently, the penalty levied by the AO and upheld by the ld. CIT(A) was deleted, and the appeal of the assessee was allowed.

In conclusion, the ITAT, in the judgment, addressed the issues raised by the assessee regarding the legality of the penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. By analyzing the facts of the case and relevant legal precedents, the ITAT ruled in favor of the assessee, emphasizing the importance of specifying the charge in the penalty notice. The decision resulted in the deletion of the penalty imposed by the AO, providing relief to the assessee.

---