2019 (4) TMI 365 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal cancels tax penalty citing flawed notice, upholds natural justice principles.

Emdee Digitronics P Ltd. Versus DCIT, Circle-10 (1), Kolkata

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, canceling the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2014-15. The decision ... Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - defective show cause notice issued u/s 274 - HELD THAT:- Notice issued u/s. 274 r.w.s 271 of the Act, placed on record, does not specify the charge of offence committed by the assessee viz. whether had concealed the particulars of income or had furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Hence the said notice is to be held as defective. See COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -VS- MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY (2013 (7) TMI 620 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT) - Decided in favour of assessee. Issues:Appeal against penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 2014-15.Analysis:1. The appeal challenged the penalty confirmed by the CIT(A) without providing the assessee an opportunity. The issue raised related to the defective show cause notice issued under section 274 read with section 271 of the Act. The appellant argued that the issue was favorably decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and both parties consented to proceed with the main appeal.2. The Tribunal considered the arguments presented by both parties and examined the material on record. The ld. DR relied on previous decisions and principles established by various High Courts. The Tribunal agreed with the reasoning of a Co-ordinate Bench in a similar case and reproduced the relevant portions for reference.3. The Tribunal discussed various decisions, including those of the Bombay High Court and the Patna High Court, regarding the issuance of notice for penalty proceedings. It was noted that the notice serves as an administrative device to inform the assessee about the proposed penalty and enable them to explain why it should not be imposed. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of natural justice principles in penalty proceedings.4. The Tribunal observed that the show cause notice in the present case did not specify the charge against the assessee, whether for concealing income particulars or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Consequently, the imposition of penalty was deemed unsustainable, and the penalty was directed to be canceled.5. The Tribunal noted that the notice issued under section 274 r.w.s 271 of the Act was defective as it did not specify the offense committed by the assessee. The Revenue's Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court was dismissed, affirming the decision against the penalty.6. Referring to a recent decision by the Jurisdictional High Court, the Tribunal set aside the CIT-A's order and canceled the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for the relevant assessment year.7. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the grounds raised by the assessee, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant.In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision was based on the inadequacy of the show cause notice, the principles of natural justice, and the precedents set by various High Courts. The penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2014-15 was canceled, and the appeal by the assessee was allowed.