2019 (10) TMI 471 - AT - Income Tax

Appeal allowed, penalty cancelled due to procedural flaw in notice.

The Appellate Tribunal ITAT Indore allowed the appeal for the Assessment Year 2008-09, directing the deletion of the penalty of Rs. 1,00,000 imposed under ... Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - non specification of charge - HELD THAT:- A.O has wrongly initiated the penalty proceedings by not specifying the charge for levy of penalty i.e. whether the penalty proceedings has been initiated for concealing particulars of income or for furnishing the inaccurate particulars of income. Assessing Officer has made proper satisfaction on record in the assessment order for initiating penalty proceedings but in the notice issue u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, Ld. A.O remained silent by not specifying as for which charge the penalty proceedings have been initiated. See SHRI VARAD MEHTA VERSUS DCIT 1 (1) , BHOPAL [2018 (12) TMI 1091 - ITAT INDORE] - Decided in favour of assessee. Issues:1. Validity of penalty proceedings initiated under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act.2. Specific charge for the levy of penalty not mentioned in the notice.3. Compliance with legal requirements for penalty proceedings.Issue 1: Validity of Penalty Proceedings:The appeal pertains to the Assessment Year 2008-09 against the orders of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) arising from the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appellant contested the penalty, arguing that it was imposed without a proper show-cause notice. The appellant claimed that there was no concealment or inaccurate particulars of income, hence not liable for the penalty. Additionally, the appellant argued that penalty cannot be automatically imposed based on assessment findings. The appellant also challenged the sustainability of the addition leading to the penalty, citing judicial authorities. The Tribunal examined the legal grounds and found the notice issued for penalty proceedings to be invalid and lacking specificity on the charge. Relying on previous judgments, the Tribunal concluded that the notice was flawed and directed the deletion of the penalty based on this legal ground.Issue 2: Specific Charge for Penalty Not Mentioned:The appellant raised concerns regarding the lack of a specific charge mentioned in the notice for initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Tribunal noted that the notice issued did not specify whether the penalty was for concealing particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Citing previous cases, the Tribunal emphasized the importance of a specific charge in such notices. Relying on precedents, the Tribunal held that the notice lacking a specific charge was invalid and did not comply with legal requirements. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the deletion of the penalty based on this procedural flaw.Issue 3: Compliance with Legal Requirements:The Tribunal analyzed the penalty proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer and upheld by the Ld. CIT(A). The appellant's legal counsel argued that the penalty proceedings were flawed due to the absence of a specific charge in the notice. The Departmental Representative supported the lower authorities' decisions. After considering the arguments and examining the notice issued for penalty, the Tribunal found the notice to be deficient in specifying the charge for the penalty. Relying on prior judgments, the Tribunal concluded that the notice's lack of specificity rendered it invalid and led to the deletion of the penalty. The Tribunal's decision was based on the legal ground of non-compliance with the requirement of a specific charge in penalty notices.In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Indore allowed the appeal of the assessee for the Assessment Year 2008-09, directing the deletion of the penalty of Rs. 1,00,000 imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal found the notice for penalty proceedings to be invalid and lacking a specific charge, thus not meeting the legal requirements for initiating penalties. The decision was based on the procedural flaw in the notice, leading to the cancellation of the penalty.