2020 (4) TMI 616 - AT - Income Tax

Appeal granted due to clarity requirement in penalty imposition under section 271(1)(c)

Fire Solution India Pvt. Ltd. Versus DCIT, Circle-1 (2), Pune.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, emphasizing the necessity of clarity in initiating and levying penalties under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. It ... Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Defective notice - non considering the proper limb of S.271(1)(c) as to whether “concealment” or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income” - HELD THAT:- This is a case where the Assessing Officer failed to record proper satisfaction while initiating and levying the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Extracts reveal that the Assessing Officer suffers from ambiguity in his mind while recording the satisfaction at the time of initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus the legal requirement of making a clear cut reference to the applicable limb of clause (c) of section 271(1) of the Act, is not met by the Assessing Officer while initiating and levying the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer suffers from ambiguity in his mind. Such penalty is unsustainable in law legally. It is a settled legal proposition that the Assessing Officer is under obligation to specify the appropriate limb of clause (c) of section 271(1) of the Act at the time of initiation as well as at the time of levy of penalty. - Decided in favour of assessee. Issues involved:- Appeal against order of CIT(A) confirming penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act- Ambiguity in the mind of the Assessing Officer while initiating and levying penalty- Legal requirement of specifying the appropriate limb of clause (c) of section 271(1) of the ActAnalysis:Issue 1: Appeal against order of CIT(A) confirming penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the ActThe appeal filed by the assessee challenged the order of the CIT(A) confirming the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for the assessment year 2009-10. The Assessing Officer had assessed the total income of the assessee after making an addition on account of non-establishment of genuineness of purchase bills, leading to the initiation of penalty proceedings. The penalty was specifically for concealing the particulars of income. The CIT(A) upheld the penalty as levied by the Assessing Officer, prompting the assessee to appeal to the Tribunal.Issue 2: Ambiguity in the mind of the Assessing Officer while initiating and levying penaltyThe Assessing Officer failed to record proper satisfaction while initiating and levying the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The initiation of penalty proceedings lacked a clear reference to the specific limb of clause (c) of section 271(1) of the Act, leading to ambiguity. The Tribunal observed that the Assessing Officer's satisfaction suffered from ambiguity in his mind, as evidenced by the reasons stated in the assessment order and penalty order. This ambiguity was a crucial factor in determining the sustainability of the penalty in law.Issue 3: Legal requirement of specifying the appropriate limb of clause (c) of section 271(1) of the ActThe Tribunal emphasized the legal requirement for the Assessing Officer to specify the applicable limb of clause (c) of section 271(1) of the Act both at the initiation and levy of penalty stages. Citing binding judgments, the Tribunal highlighted that the failure to make a clear-cut reference to the specific limb of clause (c) renders the penalty unsustainable in law. The Tribunal, without delving into the merits of the case, set aside the order of the CIT(A) and directed the Assessing Officer to delete the entire penalty imposed, as the legal requirement was not met.In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, emphasizing the importance of clarity and specificity in the initiation and levy of penalties under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The judgment underscored the legal obligation of the Assessing Officer to unambiguously specify the relevant limb of the clause, failing which the penalty would be deemed unsustainable in law.