2018 (5) TMI 1262 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty notice ruled vague and invalid, emphasizing need for clear grounds to ensure effective defense.

Chaganti Satyanarayana Versus ITO, Ward-1, Palakol

The Tribunal found the notice issued by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) to be vague and invalid. Citing relevant case law, the Tribunal ... Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - whether the notice issued by the Assessing Officer dated 26/12/2011 is valid or not? - non striking irrelevant portion of notice - Held that:- The assessing officer did not strike off the irrelevant column in the notice and made known the assessee whether the penalty was initiated for the concealment of income or for furnishing the inaccurate particulars. In the assessment order also the AO simply recorded that the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are initiated separately. Neither in the assessment order nor in the penalty notice, the assessing officer has put the assessee on notice for which offence, the penalty u/s 271 was initiated. See CIT Vs. SSA’s Emerald Meadows [2016 (8) TMI 1145 - SUPREME COURT]- Decided in favour of assessee. Issues:Validity of the notice issued by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars.Analysis:The appeal was against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) order for the Assessment Year 2009-10. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, adding amounts for capital interest, partners remuneration, and disallowed agricultural income. A penalty notice was issued under section 274 r.w.s. 271 of the Act. The issue was whether the notice was valid, as it was unclear whether it was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The assessee argued that the notice was vague, citing relevant judgments. The Departmental Representative claimed the notice was premature but valid. The Tribunal considered the arguments and relevant case laws.The Tribunal found that the notice issued by the Assessing Officer was indeed vague and not valid. Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, the Tribunal held that the notice must specify the grounds for penalty clearly to allow the assessee to contest the proceedings. The Tribunal cited similar cases where notices with irrelevant columns were deemed invalid, leading to the cancellation of penalties. By following the Supreme Court's decision and the High Court's rulings, the Tribunal concluded that the notice under section 274 read with section 271 was invalid, resulting in the cancellation of the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer.In conclusion, the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed based on the invalidity of the notice issued by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal's decision was in line with the principles of natural justice and the requirement for clear and unambiguous grounds for initiating penalty proceedings. The judgment highlighted the importance of specificity in penalty notices to ensure the assessee's right to contest and defend against the charges.