2020 (4) TMI 622 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal sets aside penalty under Income Tax Act due to ambiguity in satisfaction

Ajinkya Dilip Kotepatil, C/o. S.B. Boob & Associates Versus ITO, Ward-1 (3), Nashik.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act due to ambiguity in the satisfaction ... Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Defective notice - non specification of charge - HELD THAT:- 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 AO 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. We are of the view that 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:1. Levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act2. Ambiguity in satisfaction recorded by the Assessing OfficerAnalysis:Issue 1: Levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax ActThe appeal was filed against the order of the CIT(A) for the assessment year 2013-14. The assessee voluntarily surrendered income during assessment proceedings and paid taxes accordingly. However, the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) levied and confirmed the penalty under section 271(1)(c) for concealing income. The CIT(A) upheld the penalty relying on various Tribunal decisions and court judgments. The penalty order clearly stated the penalty was for concealing income. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer failed to specify the particular limb of clause (c) of section 271(1) of the Act while initiating and levying the penalty. Citing legal requirements and previous judgments, the Tribunal held that the penalty was unsustainable in law due to the ambiguity in the Assessing Officer's satisfaction. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to delete the entire penalty imposed, allowing the appeal on this legal issue.Issue 2: Ambiguity in satisfaction recorded by the Assessing OfficerThe Tribunal highlighted the ambiguity in the satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer while initiating and levying the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Assessing Officer's failure to specify the applicable limb of the clause led to legal unsustainability of the penalty. By referring to relevant judgments, the Tribunal emphasized the necessity for a clear reference to the appropriate limb of clause (c) during penalty initiation and levy. Due to this ambiguity, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty. The legal requirement of specifying the clause was deemed crucial, and the penalty was deemed legally unsustainable. The Tribunal's decision was based on the clarity required in the satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer, ensuring adherence to legal provisions.In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act due to the ambiguity in satisfaction recorded. The judgment emphasized the legal necessity of clearly specifying the relevant clause when initiating and levying penalties, ensuring adherence to legal requirements and preventing unsustainability of penalties.