2017 (8) TMI 1061 - AT - Income Tax

Notice under Income Tax Act deemed unclear, penalty invalidated for lack of application of mind by Assessing Officer

M/s. Khandelwal Laboratories Private Limited Versus The Dy. C.I.T, Central Circle –II, Mumbai

The Tribunal found the notice issued under section 274 read with section 271 of the Income Tax Act to be unclear, indicating a lack of application of mind ... Imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) - non valid notice - Held that:- The notice issued by the Assessing Officer under section 274 r.w.s. 271 of the Act dated 30/12/2009 is untenable since it reflects non-application of the mind by the Assessing Officer, having regard to the ratio of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dilip N. Shroff (2007 (5) TMI 198 - SUPREME Court) as well as Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Shri Samson Perinchery (2013 (11) TMI 369 - ITAT MUMBAI). Thus, on this preliminary point itself the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is liable to be deleted. - Decided in favour of assessee. Issues Involved:1. Imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. Validity of the penalty order due to the alleged improper issuance of notice under section 274 read with section 271 of the Act.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Imposition of Penalty under Section 271(1)(c):The central issue in both appeals pertains to the imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The penalty was levied due to the addition of Rs. 84,87,981/- to the assessee's income on account of deferred revenue expenditure, which was initially debited to the Profit & Loss Account under 'Miscellaneous Expenditure'. The Assessing Officer (AO) determined the total income at Rs. 1,30,85,500/- against the returned income of Rs. 50,05,833/-, and subsequently, imposed a penalty equivalent to 100% of the tax sought to be evaded, amounting to Rs. 28,57,054/-. This penalty was affirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)].2. Validity of the Penalty Order Due to Alleged Improper Issuance of Notice:The assessee raised an additional ground challenging the penalty order on the basis that the notice issued under section 274 read with section 271 of the Act was not clear whether the penalty proceedings were initiated for 'furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income' or 'concealment of income'. This ground was supported by referencing the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Thermal Power Company Ltd. vs. CIT and the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Shri Samson Perinchery.The Tribunal admitted this additional ground, noting that it involved a pure point of law and its determination was feasible based on the existing material and facts on record. The Tribunal observed that the notice issued by the AO was in a standard format and did not strike off the irrelevant limb, thereby creating ambiguity whether the penalty was for 'concealment of income' or 'furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income'. The Tribunal emphasized that such ambiguity reflects non-application of mind by the AO, as highlighted in the judgments of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory & Ors. and the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Shri Samson Perinchery.The Tribunal further noted that the AO's assessment order mentioned the initiation of penalty for 'furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income', whereas the penalty order stated the penalty was imposed for 'concealment/furnishing inaccurate particulars'. This inconsistency indicated confusion and lack of clarity on the part of the AO, thus violating the principles of natural justice.Conclusion:The Tribunal concluded that the notice issued under section 274 read with section 271 of the Act was untenable due to non-application of mind by the AO. Consequently, the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act was liable to be deleted. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and directed the AO to delete the penalty of Rs. 28,57,054/- for the assessment year 2007-08. For the assessment year 2008-09, the Tribunal noted that the facts and circumstances were similar to those of the previous year, and therefore, the decision for 2007-08 applied mutatis mutandis to 2008-09 as well.Order:Both appeals of the assessee were allowed, and the penalties imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for the assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09 were deleted.