2021 (11) TMI 747 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty notice invalid: tribunal quashes penalty under Income Tax Act, emphasizes charge specification

The tribunal found that the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act was invalid as the notice did not specify the charge related to ... Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) - defective notice u/s 274 - whether AO failed to specify the charge and record requisite satisfaction with regard to concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income - HELD THAT:- As in the notice issued u/s. 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, there was no specific charges as relates to concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. From the notice dated 30/03/2013 produced by the Ld. AR during the hearing, it can be seen that the AO was not sure under which limb of provisions of Section 271 assessee is liable for penalty. Besides that the Assessment Order also did not specify the charge as to whether there is concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income in assessee's case. Thus, there is no particular limb mentioned in the notice issued under Section 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 - See M/S SSA'S EMERALD MEADOWS [2016 (8) TMI 1145 - SC ORDER] Inappropriate words in the penalty notice has not been struck off and the notice does not specify as to under which limb of the provisions, the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) has been initiated, therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) is not sustainable and has to be deleted. Notice under Section 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 of the Act itself is bad in law. - Decided in favour of assessee. Issues:Penalty under section 271(1)(c) - Specific charge not mentioned in notice.Analysis:The appeal was filed against the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appellant argued that the penalty order was invalid as the assessing officer failed to specify the charge and record requisite satisfaction regarding concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The appellant relied on various court decisions to support the argument that a specific charge is essential for the levy of penalty. The appellant contended that the penalty notice did not mention under which limb of section 271(1)(c) the penalty was imposed, making the penalty order wrong and bad in law.The respondent, on the other hand, argued that the penalty order clearly indicated that it was imposed for concealment of income. The respondent relied on the assessment order, penalty order, and the CIT(A)'s decision to support their stance.Upon hearing both parties and examining the relevant materials, it was observed that the notice issued under section 271(1)(c) did not specify the charge related to concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The absence of a specific limb in the notice rendered the penalty order invalid. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a similar case was cited, emphasizing the importance of specifying the limb of section 271(1)(c) in the penalty notice. Therefore, the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) was deemed unsustainable and was ordered to be deleted.The tribunal concluded that the penalty notice's failure to mention the specific limb of section 271(1)(c) rendered it invalid. Citing relevant court judgments, the tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed the Assessing Officer to cancel the penalty imposed. Consequently, the appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the penalty under section 271(1)(c) was quashed.