Penalty under IT Act for A.Y. 2013-2014 set aside for lack of charge specificity.

The Appellate Tribunal set aside the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 for the A.Y. 2013-2014, due to the show cause notice's failure to specify the charge of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Tribunal deemed the notice invalid, following precedents from the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court, Hon'ble Supreme Court, and consistent views of ITAT, Delhi Benches. Consequently, the penalty was canceled, and the appeal of the assessee was allowed.

---

---

Issues: Challenge to penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 due to vague show cause notice specifying concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was directed against the Order of the Ld. CIT(A)-15, New Delhi, challenging the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 for the A.Y. 2013-2014.

2. The assessee contended that the notice under section 271(1)(c) did not specify the exact charge of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, making it vague and liable to be set aside. Reference was made to an Order of ITAT, Delhi C-Bench in a specific case.

3. On the contrary, the Ld. D.R. argued that the failure of the A.O. to specify the charge in the show cause notice did not warrant deletion of the penalty. Reference was made to an Order of ITAT, Chennai Bench.

4. The Appellate Tribunal noted that the show cause notice issued by the A.O. did not specify the limb of Section 271(1)(c) under which the penalty proceedings were initiated, rendering it invalid in law. The Tribunal cited decisions by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court, along with consistent views of ITAT, Delhi Benches, to support the conclusion that in such cases, the levy of penalty is invalid.

5. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the Orders of the authorities below and canceled the penalty, as the show cause notice was deemed invalid, leading to the entire penalty proceedings being vitiated. The decisions relied upon by the Ld. D.R. were found insufficient to support the Revenue's case.

6. Ultimately, the appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the penalty was canceled based on the invalidity of the show cause notice. The order was pronounced in the open Court.

---