2018 (3) TMI 1155 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal Invalidates Penalty for Lack of Specific Reasons - Section 271(1)(c) Appeal Success

Shri G. Vengal Rao Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward 11 (5), Hyderabad

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant in the appeal against the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) for A.Y 2008-09. The penalty order was ... Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Eligible for exemption u/s 54F denied - Held that:- Assessee can only understand that the penalty is initiated for non-furnishing of the information on investment made, unless the AO clarifies that the penalty is initiated for making a wrong or fictitious claim or for making an ineligible claim. We find that the penalty can only be levied only if the assessee furnishes inaccurate particulars of income or conceals its income and not for making any inaccurate claim. In the case before us, the assessee has made an inaccurate claim but has furnished all the relevant data before the AO. Therefore, we are inclined to allow the assessee’s appeal both on ground of invalidity of the notice and also on merits. Therefore, the penalty levied by the AO is deleted.- Decided in favour of assessee. Issues:Appeal against penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for A.Y 2008-09.Analysis:Issue 1: Validity of Penalty OrderThe appellant challenged the penalty order on the grounds that the Assessing Officer (AO) did not provide specific reasons for initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The appellant argued that the penalty notice issued by the AO was defective as it did not clearly state whether the penalty was for inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income. The appellant contended that the penalty order lacked a clear finding on whether it was a case of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.Issue 2: Claim of Exemption under Section 54FThe AO disallowed the appellant's claim for exemption under Section 54F of the Act, stating that the appellant failed to provide details of investments made in a residential property. The CIT (A) upheld this decision, ruling that the appellant was not eligible for the exemption due to owning more than two residential properties. The appellant argued that they had disclosed all relevant facts regarding the residential property and that disallowance of a legal claim should not lead to a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act.Issue 3: Notice for Penalty ProceedingsThe appellant contested the validity of the notice issued by the AO for penalty proceedings, claiming that the AO did not specify the grounds for initiating the penalty. The appellant relied on legal precedents to argue that the AO should clarify the nature of the default committed by the assessee in the penalty notice.JudgmentThe Tribunal found that the AO's rejection of the appellant's claim under Section 54F was based on the lack of investment details, not on concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Tribunal emphasized that the penalty can only be levied for inaccurate particulars or concealment of income, not for making an inaccurate claim. As the appellant had provided all relevant information to the AO, the penalty was deemed invalid. Citing legal interpretations, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing the appeal and deleting the penalty imposed by the AO.This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues raised by the appellant, the arguments presented, and the Tribunal's decision based on legal provisions and precedents.