2021 (11) TMI 965 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty order quashed due to lack of specification in notice, emphasizing clarity and fairness

M/s. SBICAP Trustee Company Ltd. Versus DCIT – Circle – 3 (3) (1) Mumbai

The tribunal quashed the penalty order under section 271(1)(c) of the Act due to the lack of specification in the notice, following the Full Bench ... Penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) - defective notice u/s 274 - assessee stated that the penalty order is bad in law as penalty proceedings were initiated and penalty was levied without specifying the exact limb of section u/s.271(1)(c) - HELD THAT:- On a perusal of the notice issued u/s. 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act we observe that the Assessing Officer has not specified any limb for which the notice was issued i.e., either for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of such income. Assessing Officer did not strike off irrelevant limb in the notice and specifying the charge for which notice was issued. Case of MR. MOHD. FARHAN A. SHAIKH [2021 (3) TMI 608 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] squarely applies to the facts of the assessee’s case as the notice u/s. 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act was issued mechanically in a printed format without striking off the irrelevant portion of the limb and failed to intimate the assessee the relevant limb and charge for which the notice was issued. Thus, respectfully following the said decision we hold that the penalty order passed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act by the Assessing Officer is bad in law and accordingly the penalty order passed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act is quashed - Decided in favour of assessee. Issues:1. Validity of penalty order under section 271(1)(c) of the Act due to lack of specification of limb in the notice.Analysis:The appeal was filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) sustaining the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for the assessment year 2012-13. The primary contention raised by the assessee was that the penalty order was invalid as the penalty proceedings were initiated without specifying the exact limb of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The notice issued under section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) did not strike off the irrelevant limb and failed to specify the charge for which the notice was issued, leading to ambiguity. The assessee relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Full Bench at Goa) in a similar case, emphasizing that the assessee must be informed of the grounds of the penalty proceedings only through a statutory notice to avoid vagueness.The Assessing Officer did not specify any limb for which the notice was issued, whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The tribunal referred to the Full Bench decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Goa) which emphasized that penalty proceedings must stand on their own and the notice must specify the grounds clearly. The tribunal concluded that the penalty order was bad in law due to the lack of specification in the notice, following the decision of the Full Bench. Consequently, the penalty order passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act was quashed, and the appeal of the assessee was allowed. Since the preliminary ground was decided in favor of the assessee, the other grounds raised on merits were not addressed as they became academic.In summary, the tribunal held that the penalty order was invalid as the notice failed to specify the relevant limb and charge for which it was issued, following the strict construction of penal provisions and principles of natural justice. The decision was based on the Full Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Goa), emphasizing the importance of clarity and specificity in penalty proceedings to avoid ambiguity and ensure fairness in the process.