2019 (12) TMI 1134 - AT - Wealth-tax

Penalty proceedings invalidated for lack of specificity, assessees' appeals allowed, other grounds not adjudicated

The Tribunal found the penalty proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer to be invalid due to the lack of specificity in the penalty notice, thereby ... Penalty u/s 18(1)(c) of Wealth tax Act - Defective notice - HELD THAT:- In the present case, section 18(1)(c) of the Wealth Tax Act is para materia with section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. Being so, the facts for imposing penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act will be applicable to the facts of the present case. As seen from the above notice for imposing penalty u/s. 18(1)(c) of the Wealth Tax Act, the Assessing Officer has not struck out the irrelevant portion of the notice. In other words he has not specified whether he is levying penalty for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. As held in the case of CIT & Anr. vs. M/s. SSA’s Emerald Meadows [2015 (11) TMI 1620 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] that the notice issued by the Assessing Officer u/s. 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) is to be bad in law as it did not specify which limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty proceedings had been initiated, i.e., whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. This view was confirmed by the Supreme Court in the same case, i.e., CIT & Anr. vs. M/s. SSA’s Emerald Meadows [2016 (8) TMI 1145 - SC ORDER] We are inclined to hold that the penalty proceedings u/s.18(1)(c) of the Wealth Tax Act initiated by the AO is void ab initio and allow the appeals of the assessee. Issues Involved:Wealth tax appeals against orders of CWT(Appeals)-II, Kochi for assessment years 2010-11 to 2012-13; Common grounds raised by assessees; Additional grounds raised by assessees; Validity of penalty notice under section 18 of the Wealth Tax Act; Applicability of penalty provisions; Whether penalty proceedings initiated by AO are valid.Analysis:Issue 1: Common Grounds Raised by AssesseesThe assessees challenged the Appellate Order of the Commissioner of Wealth Tax(Appeals) on various grounds. They contended that the penalty under section 18(1)(c) was unjustified as they had not concealed or furnished inaccurate particulars of their net wealth. They argued that the Assessing Officer had determined the net wealth after obtaining information from the Sub Registrar and that there was no suppression or concealment on their part. The assessees also raised additional grounds citing judicial precedents and requested the cancellation of the penalty imposed.Issue 2: Additional Grounds Raised by AssesseesThe assessees submitted additional grounds along with a petition for their admission, citing the judgment of the Karnataka High Court regarding the validity of penalty notices under section 18 of the Wealth Tax Act. The Tribunal admitted the additional grounds for adjudication based on the assessees' bona fide reasons for not raising them earlier, as per the discretion of the Tribunal to allow such grounds.Issue 3: Validity of Penalty Notice under Section 18 of the Wealth Tax ActThe penalty notice issued under section 18 of the Wealth Tax Act lacked specificity as it did not clearly indicate whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Assessing Officer failed to strike off the irrelevant portion of the notice, which led to ambiguity regarding the nature of the penal action. The legal representatives argued that this technical flaw rendered the penalty proceedings invalid, citing recent judgments from various High Courts to support their contention.Issue 4: Applicability of Penalty ProvisionsThe Tribunal equated section 18(1)(c) of the Wealth Tax Act with section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, emphasizing that penalty provisions for both Acts share common principles. Relying on precedents, the Tribunal highlighted the importance of specifying the nature of the default in penalty notices to ensure procedural fairness. The failure to specify whether the penalty was for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars rendered the penalty proceedings void ab initio, leading to the allowance of the assessees' appeals.In conclusion, the Tribunal found the penalty proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer to be invalid due to the lack of specificity in the penalty notice, thereby allowing the appeals of the assessees. The Tribunal refrained from adjudicating other grounds raised by the assessees, as the quashing of the penalty proceedings sufficed to resolve the matter.