2019 (1) TMI 288 - AT - Income Tax

Appeal allowed due to insufficient charge specification in penalty imposition for Assessment Year 2012-13

The Tribunal allowed the appeal against the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) for Assessment Year 2012-13. The penalty was contested on the grounds ... Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - defective notice - non specification of charge - Held that:- The perusal of notice u/s 274 read with Section 271 dated 20/03/2015, as placed on record, reveal that the appropriate clause as applicable to the fact of the case was not marked and secondly, the appropriate limb for which the penalty was being initiated was not marked / ticked. Penalty order reveal that the penalty has finally been levied by invoking explanation-1 to Section 271(1)(c) since the assessee has concealed the income by furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. An important observation is the fact that the two limbs viz. concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income have inter-changeably been used by Ld. AO while levying the impugned penalty. However, these two limbs, as per settled judicial pronouncements, are distinct and operate separately in the sense that concealment implies ‘to hide something’ whereas ‘furnishing’ implies adducing / putting forward something - non specification of the exact charge with due application of mind for which the assessee was being penalized the impugned penalty could not be sustained - decided in favour of assessee Issues:Appeal against penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for AY 2012-13.Analysis:1. The appeal contested the penalty imposed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for concealing income related to alleged bogus purchases. The additions were made due to purchases from a supplier listed as hawala dealers, despite the assessee providing primary purchase documents.2. The penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) were initiated against the quantum addition, and the penalty was confirmed. The Ld. AR challenged the penalty on legal grounds, arguing that proper satisfaction was not recorded by the Ld. AO. The Ld. DR contended that the penalty was justified as the assessee concealed income by furnishing inaccurate particulars.3. The Tribunal observed that the penalty was levied under explanation-1 to Section 271(1)(c) for concealing income by furnishing inaccurate particulars. However, it was noted that the Ld. AO failed to specify the exact charge for which the penalty was imposed, as concealment and furnishing inaccurate particulars are distinct. The Tribunal held that the failure to specify the exact charge was fatal to the penalty proceedings, leading to the penalty being unsustainable.4. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, stating that the impugned penalty could not be sustained due to the lack of proper satisfaction recorded by the Ld. AO regarding the exact nature of the offence committed by the assessee. The appeal was allowed, and the penalty was set aside.