2017 (11) TMI 676 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal emphasizes clarity in penalty grounds, deletes penalty citing legal precedents.

The tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, emphasizing the importance of clarity in specifying the grounds for penalty imposition. Referring to ... Levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - addition on bogus purchases - Held that:- AO is not sure about the charge on which penalty is to be levied. The AO has also invoked issue of concealment of particulars of income. He is also levied penalty for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income as is clear from the order of the AO. In view of this facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the AO himself is not sure about the levy of this charge. Since, the issue is covered by the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Samson Perinchery (2017 (1) TMI 1292 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT), respectfully following the same, we delete the penalty and allow the appeal of the assessee. Issues:Levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act on bogus purchases; Jurisdiction for levy of penalty; Clarity on the specific charge for penalty imposition.Analysis:1. Levy of Penalty on Bogus Purchases:The appeal pertains to the confirmation of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act on bogus purchases. The assessee contested this penalty, citing two grounds. Firstly, the learned CIT(A) confirmed the penalty levied by the ACIT, and secondly, the CIT(A) allegedly erred in not considering previous judgments where penalties were dropped in similar cases to avoid litigation. The AO had initiated penalty proceedings for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and concealment of income. The penalty was imposed based on the enhancement of purchases due to accommodation entries from hawala traders. The AO's ambiguity regarding the specific charge for penalty imposition was a key contention raised by the assessee.2. Jurisdiction for Levy of Penalty:The issue of jurisdiction for the levy of penalty was raised by the assessee, arguing that the penalty proceedings were initiated for both furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and concealment of income. The AO's lack of clarity on the specific charge for penalty imposition was highlighted. The departmental representative relied on a Bombay High Court decision to support the penalty imposition, emphasizing that errors in language or notice format do not invalidate penalty proceedings. However, the assessee contended that the initiation of penalty should clearly specify the charge, as upheld in the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in a similar case.3. Clarity on Specific Charge for Penalty Imposition:The tribunal analyzed the case in light of the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in a similar matter, where it was held that the initiation of penalty must specify whether it is for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income. The tribunal noted that the AO's lack of clarity on the charge for penalty imposition was a crucial factor. Referring to the decision of the Karnataka High Court, the tribunal emphasized that penalties must be imposed based on the specific grounds for initiation, and any ambiguity in the notice issued could lead to the penalty being unsustainable. The tribunal ultimately ruled in favor of the assessee, citing the precedent set by the Bombay High Court and Karnataka High Court decisions, and deleted the penalty imposed by the AO.In conclusion, the tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, emphasizing the importance of clarity in specifying the grounds for penalty imposition and following established legal precedents in similar cases to ensure fair and just outcomes in penalty proceedings.