2018 (5) TMI 1316 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal upholds deletion of penalties; invalid notice violates natural justice; clear charges required.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal and upheld the deletion of penalties under Section 271(1)(c). The penalty for furnishing inaccurate ... Penalty u/s.271(1)(c) - notice does not specify the limb of section 271(1)(c) for which penalty proceedings were initiated i.e. whether for ‘concealment of income’ or ‘furnishing of inaccurate particulars of such income’ - Held that:- In the instant case, the AO vide his order u/s 143(3) dated 28.12.2011 has initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income. In the draft penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) dated 24.03.2014, the AO has imposed penalty of ₹ 46,59,047/- for concealment of income. Also we find that there is no provision in the Income Tax Act, 1961 for a draft penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. See Dilip N. Shroff case [2007 (5) TMI 198 - SUPREME COURT] - Decided in favour of assessee. Issues Involved:1. Deletion of penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income (deemed dividend).2. Deletion of penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) for disallowance of interest expenses.3. Validity of the penalty proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer (AO).Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Deletion of Penalty Levied Under Section 271(1)(c) for Furnishing Inaccurate Particulars of Income (Deemed Dividend):The Revenue contended that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) on account of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, specifically deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) amounting to Rs. 1,17,50,000, which was not offered to tax in the return of income. The CIT(A) deleted the penalty, noting that the issue of applicability of Section 2(22)(e) is a legal proposition involving debatable issues, making the levy of penalty unjustified. The Tribunal upheld this view, emphasizing that the penalty proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature and the assessee should be aware of the exact charge against them.2. Deletion of Penalty Levied Under Section 271(1)(c) for Disallowance of Interest Expenses:The Revenue argued that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty on the disallowance of interest expenses amounting to Rs. 18,65,165, which were not expended wholly and exclusively for earning income under Section 57(iii). The CIT(A) deleted the penalty, stating that the assessee had made a bona fide claim of deduction based on reliance on law, which cannot be considered dishonest or mala fide. The Tribunal agreed, highlighting that a bona fide claim, even if ultimately disallowed, does not necessarily attract penalty under Section 271(1)(c).3. Validity of the Penalty Proceedings Initiated by the Assessing Officer (AO):The Tribunal focused on the validity of the penalty proceedings initiated by the AO. The assessee argued that the notice issued under Section 271(1)(c) read with Section 274 did not specify the limb for which penalty proceedings were initiated, i.e., whether for 'concealment of income' or 'furnishing of inaccurate particulars of such income'. The Tribunal found merit in this argument, relying on precedents such as CIT v. SSA’s Emerald Meadows and CIT v. Samson Perincherry, which held that such ambiguity in the notice renders the penalty proceedings invalid. The Tribunal noted that the AO's draft penalty order did not comply with the principles of natural justice and suffered from non-application of mind, rendering the penalty proceedings bad in law.Conclusion:The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue and allowed the cross-objection raised by the assessee. The penalty proceedings initiated by the AO were held to be invalid due to the lack of specificity in the notice regarding the exact charge against the assessee. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of clear and specific charges in penalty proceedings to ensure compliance with principles of natural justice.