2019 (1) TMI 1000 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty under Income Tax Act: Concealment vs. Inaccurate Particulars

Smt. Veena Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 (4), Jalandhar

The Tribunal found that the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer (AO) and upheld by the ld. CIT(A) under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act was ... Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - non specification of charge - defective notice - Held that:- In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the AO initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income but the penalty has been levied for concealment of income which was not the charge while initiating the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Therefore, the impugned penalty levied by the AO and sustained by the ld. CIT(A) was not justified. Accordingly, the same is deleted. - decided in favour of assessee. Issues:- Appeal against the order of ld. CIT(A)-1, Jalandhar regarding penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.Detailed Analysis:1. Issue of Penalty Levied by AO:- The AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) for inaccurate particulars of income and levied a penalty of Rs. 6,93,499.- The assessee appealed to the ld. CIT(A) who upheld the penalty.- The assessee contended that the penalty was unjustified as there was no specific charge for concealment of income in the assessment order.- The AO's penalty was based on concealment of income, not the inaccurate particulars as initially stated.2. Arguments and Submissions:- The assessee argued that the penalty initiation and charge were different, rendering the penalty unjustified.- The assessee's counsel referenced discrepancies in the AO's notice and the basis for the penalty.- The ld. DR supported the lower authorities' decisions.3. Judgment and Decision:- The Tribunal found that although penalty proceedings were initiated for inaccurate particulars, the penalty was levied for concealment of income.- The Tribunal concluded that the penalty imposed by the AO and upheld by the ld. CIT(A) was not justified.- Consequently, the Tribunal deleted the penalty and allowed the appeal of the assessee.4. Conclusion:- The Tribunal's decision highlighted the importance of aligning the penalty charge with the grounds of initiation.- The judgment emphasized that penalties should be imposed based on the specific charges mentioned during the initiation of penalty proceedings.- The Tribunal's ruling favored the assessee by deleting the penalty due to the discrepancy between the charge and the penalty imposed.This comprehensive analysis of the judgment outlines the issues, arguments, and the Tribunal's decision regarding the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.