2019 (11) TMI 1299 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty annulled: Vague notice breached natural justice. Clear charges crucial for fair penalty proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were unsustainable due to the vague and ambiguous notice issued under Section 274 read with Section ... Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Defective notice - non specification of charge - HELD THAT:- As relying on MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY & OTHS., M/S. V.S. LAD & SONS, [2013 (7) TMI 620 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] and M/S SSA'S EMERALD MEADOWS [2016 (8) TMI 1145 - SC ORDER] and M/S. SAHARA INDIA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, LTD. [2019 (8) TMI 409 - DELHI HIGH COURT] when the notice issued by the AO is bad in law being vague and ambiguous having not specified under which limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty proceedings initiated u/s 271(1)(c) are not sustainable. So, initiating penalty proceedings on the basis of vague and ambiguous notice is bad in law and as such not sustainable. - Decided in favour of assessee. Issues Involved:1. Wrongful imposition of penalty based on disallowed deduction under Section 10BA.2. Alleged non-appearance of the assessee or representative during proceedings.3. Incorrect naming of the assessee in official documents.4. Validity of the penalty notice under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c).Detailed Analysis:1. Wrongful Imposition of Penalty Based on Disallowed Deduction Under Section 10BA:The core issue revolves around the imposition of a penalty amounting to Rs. 252,230 under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The penalty was based on the disallowance of a deduction claimed under Section 10BA, amounting to Rs. 830,762. The assessee argued that the deduction was a statutory allowance for the export of handmade handicrafts, and there was no concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The assessee's claim was initially disallowed on the grounds that they were traders, not manufacturers, and did not employ any workers, which was confirmed by the CIT(A). Despite the disallowance, the assessee contended that the information provided was accurate and complete.2. Alleged Non-Appearance of the Assessee or Representative During Proceedings:The assessee contested the claim that neither they nor their representative appeared or submitted documents in response to the penalty notice. It was asserted that on 25.03.2014, the representative, Mr. V.C. Gautam, CA, appeared and filed a written explanation, which was acknowledged by the Assessing Officer. This was a point of contention, as the Assessing Officer had noted non-appearance, which the assessee claimed was incorrect.3. Incorrect Naming of the Assessee in Official Documents:The assessee highlighted that the Assessing Officer had incorrectly referred to them as 'Kohli International' instead of the correct name 'Kohli Inter Continental.' This error was pointed out as a procedural flaw in the penalty proceedings.4. Validity of the Penalty Notice Under Section 274 Read with Section 271(1)(c):The validity of the penalty notice was a significant issue. The assessee argued that the notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) was vague and did not specify whether the penalty was for 'concealment of particulars of income' or 'furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.' This ambiguity was claimed to violate principles of natural justice, as the assessee was not clearly informed of the charges. The Tribunal referenced the Karnataka High Court's decision in CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory, which held that a penalty notice must clearly specify the charge. The Tribunal also cited the Supreme Court's dismissal of the Revenue's SLP in CIT vs. SSA's Emerald Meadows, reinforcing that an ambiguous notice invalidates the penalty proceedings.Conclusion:The Tribunal concluded that the penalty proceedings were unsustainable due to the vague and ambiguous notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c). The notice failed to specify the exact charge, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) was deleted, and the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed. The order emphasized the necessity for clear and specific charges in penalty notices to uphold the principles of natural justice.