Tax penalty overturned due to defective notice, assessee's appeal allowed, CIT(A)'s order deleted.

The Tribunal held that the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act was unsustainable due to a defective notice that failed to specify the exact charge. Consequently, the penalty was set aside, and the CIT(A)'s order confirming the penalty was deleted. The appeal by the assessee was allowed solely on the grounds of the defective notice, without delving into the merits of the case. The penalty was deleted, and the order was pronounced on June 26, 2019.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act.
2. Validity of the penalty order due to alleged non-specific notice under section 274 read with section 271.
3. Confirmation of penalty by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)].

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of Penalty Levied under Section 271(1)(c):
The core issue revolves around the penalty of Rs. 5,56,685 levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year (A.Y) 2011-12. The assessee argued that the penalty was unjustified as there was no concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The penalty was initiated due to a discrepancy involving a cash deposit of Rs. 65,22,970 in ICICI Bank, BKC branch, which was not disclosed by the assessee. This amount was added to the income of the assessee, leading to the penalty proceedings.

2. Validity of the Penalty Order Due to Alleged Non-Specific Notice:
The assessee contended that the penalty notice issued under section 274 read with section 271 was defective as it did not specify the particular charge—whether it was for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. This ambiguity in the notice was argued to render the penalty proceedings invalid. The Tribunal referred to several precedents, including the case of CIT-11 Vs. Samson Perinchery and Meherjee Cassinath Holdings P. Ltd. Vs. ACIT, which emphasized that the notice must clearly specify the charge to allow the assessee to prepare an adequate defense. The Tribunal highlighted that the Supreme Court, in the case of Dilip N. Shroff, recognized the distinct connotations of 'concealment of income' and 'furnishing inaccurate particulars of income,' necessitating clear communication of the specific charge in the penalty notice.

3. Confirmation of Penalty by the CIT(A):
The CIT(A) had confirmed the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer (AO). However, the Tribunal found that the notice issued to the assessee did not strike off the irrelevant charge, reflecting non-application of mind by the AO. The Tribunal noted that the assessment order mentioned both charges, but the notice failed to specify which charge was being pursued. This defect was deemed sufficient to invalidate the penalty proceedings.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the penalty was not sustainable due to the defective notice, which failed to specify the exact charge under section 271(1)(c). Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and deleted the penalty. The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed on these grounds, without delving into the merits of the case, as the legal issue regarding the defective notice was sufficient to decide the matter.

Order Pronouncement:
The order was pronounced in the open court on June 26, 2019, allowing the appeal filed by the assessee and deleting the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c).

---