2019 (7) TMI 1002 - HC - Income Tax

Court Upholds Tax Penalties Without Specific Charges; Appeals Dismissed

The Prinicipal Commissioner of Income Tax, Panaji Versus  New Era Sova Mine, New Era Vaglar Mine And New Era Keli Mine.  

The High Court dismissed the Appeals challenging penalties for late tax return filing under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, as no specific charges of ... Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Assessee had not filed returns within the due date - Assessee were claimed to have filed returns after a search was conducted in their premises u/s 132 - Department's case was that but for such search, the income now offered to tax by the Assessee would not have been so offered - HELD THAT:- Tribunal has correctly observed in its impugned order that the penalty notices in these cases were not issued for any specific charge, that is to say, for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. When the matter was before the CIT (A), he referred to the decision of Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. SSA's Emerald Meadows [2015 (11) TMI 1620 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] held that no notice could be issued under Section 274, read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, without indicating which particular limb of Section 271(1)(c) was invoked for initiating the penalty proceedings. The Court took the view that the matter was covered by an earlier decision of a Division Bench of that Court and did not involve any substantial question of law. Issues involved:Appeal against penalty for late filing of tax returns under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act without specific charges of concealment or inaccurate particulars.Analysis:The High Court of Bombay heard Income Tax Appeals challenging a common order by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal related to penalties imposed by the Assessing Officer on the Assessees for late filing of tax returns post a search under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal correctly noted that the penalty notices were not issued for specific charges like concealment of income particulars or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The CIT (A) referred to a Karnataka High Court decision stating that penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) require indicating the specific limb invoked, which was upheld by the Supreme Court and the jurisdictional High Court in a previous case.The High Court concluded that the Appeals did not raise any substantial question of law and hence were not admitted. The Appeals were dismissed based on the lack of merit in challenging the penalty imposed for late filing of tax returns without specific charges of concealment or inaccurate particulars.