2019 (4) TMI 1614 - AT - Income Tax

Appeal granted, penalties canceled under Income Tax Act. Invalid notices lacked specificity, penalties annulled.

M/s Sparsh Agro-Pro Pvt. Ltd. Versus ACIT, Circle-3, Parmar Building, Asansol

The tribunal allowed the appeal and canceled the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The penalty notices were deemed ... Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - whether the assessee is accused of concealment of particulars of any taxable income or it had furnished inaccurate particulars of such income? - non specification of charge - defective notice - HELD THAT:- Notice issued by the Assessing Officer under Section 274 read with Section 271(l)(c) to be bad in law as it did not specify which limb of Section 271(l)(c) of the Act, the penalty proceedings had been initiated i.e., whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The Tribunal, while allowing the appeal of the assessee, has relied on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -VS- MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY [2013 (7) TMI 620 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] - Decided in favour of assessee. Issues:Challenge to correctness of penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 due to lack of specificity in penalty notice.Analysis:The appeal challenged the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The issue revolved around the lack of specificity in the penalty notice, which did not clearly state whether the penalty was for concealing particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Citing a previous decision, it was argued that the notice should specifically mention the grounds for imposing the penalty, as per the requirements of law. The Karnataka High Court's principles on imposing penalties under section 271(1)(c) were cited, emphasizing the need for clarity in the notice and the importance of specifying the grounds to allow the assessee to contest the proceedings effectively. It was highlighted that initiating penalty proceedings on one ground and finding the assessee guilty of another ground is not legally sustainable.The tribunal referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court and held that the penalty notices in the present case were defective as they did not clearly specify the grounds for imposing the penalty. Following the legal principles outlined, the tribunal concluded that the penalty imposed in all assessment years was invalid and consequently canceled. The tribunal emphasized that the levy of penalty could not be sustained due to the defects in the show cause notice under section 274 of the Act. As a result, the orders imposing penalties on the assessee were canceled, and the appeal by the assessee was allowed. The tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty in question based on the detailed reasoning provided in the decision.In conclusion, the appeal was allowed, and the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was canceled due to the lack of specificity in the penalty notice, which did not clearly specify the grounds for imposing the penalty. The tribunal's decision was based on legal principles emphasizing the importance of clarity in penalty notices and the need for specific grounds to be mentioned to enable the assessee to contest the proceedings effectively.