2022 (9) TMI 411 - AT - Income Tax

Appeal allowed as penalty unjustified for AY 2011-12. Specify charges for penalties.

Vijay J. Faldu Versus The ITO Ward-1 (4) Rajkot

The ITAT allowed the appeal, stating that the penalty of Rs.65,869 imposed under section 271(1)(c) for AY 2011-12 was unjustified as the appellant did not ... Penalty u/s.271(1)(c) - allegation of defective notice - non specification of clear charge - unexplained cash deposit - whether it is concealment particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income? - HELD THAT:- Revenue is not specifying any limb and simply imposed penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act without staking any default on the part of the assessee at the time of assessment proceedings related to information of income of the assessee. In the original assessment order, the addition was made in respect of peak credit balance and addition of bank interest. From the perusal of the records, it can be seen that the assessee has requested the Assessing Officer to treat the incurred cash deposit as his total sales receipts of trading activities of chalk lumps and offered profit at 8% of 9% of total turnover. Once the assessee has offered the same cash deposits, the AO cannot observe that the same is inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of particulars of income. See SSA’s Emarld Meadows [2016 (8) TMI 1145 - SC ORDER] and MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY [2013 (7) TMI 620 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] As the assessee at no point of time has furnished inaccurate particulars of income or concealed any particulars of income. Hence, the Assessing Officer as well as CIT(A) was not right in imposing the penalty. Appeal of assessee allowed. Issues:1. Confirmation of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) by CIT(A)2. Adequacy of time and opportunity given to assessee during penalty proceedings3. Justification for levy of penalty without sufficient material4. Specificity of charges in penalty noticeAnalysis:1. The appeal was filed against the CIT(A)'s order confirming a penalty of Rs.65,869 u/s.271(1)(c) for AY 2011-12. The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings after finalizing the assessment u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, determining total income. The penalty was imposed without specifying whether it was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The appellant argued that penalty is not leviable when additions are made on an estimated basis, citing relevant case laws. The ITAT noted that the assessee had not concealed income or furnished inaccurate particulars, hence allowing the appeal.2. The appellant contended that adequate time and opportunity were not provided during penalty proceedings. The ITAT observed that the penalty notice did not specify any particular limb for imposing the penalty, leading to ambiguity. The appellant's request to treat cash deposits as total sales receipts was not indicative of inaccurate particulars or concealment. Citing legal precedents, the ITAT held that penalty cannot be imposed without establishing concealment or inaccurate particulars, thus favoring the appellant.3. The appellant argued that the penalty was unjustified due to lack of cogent material. The ITAT found that the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) had erred in imposing the penalty as the appellant had not concealed income or provided inaccurate particulars. The ITAT referenced a Supreme Court decision and a Karnataka High Court case to support its conclusion that the penalty was unwarranted.4. The appellant raised concerns regarding the specificity of charges in the penalty notice. The ITAT noted that the penalty notice did not clearly state whether it was for concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Citing various High Court decisions, the ITAT emphasized the importance of specifying charges in penalty notices. The ITAT referred to a case where penalty proceedings initiated for one offense cannot be sustained if the assessee is found guilty of another offense, supporting the appellant's argument.In conclusion, the ITAT allowed the appeal, emphasizing that the penalty was unjustified as the appellant had not concealed income or furnished inaccurate particulars. The judgment highlighted the importance of providing specific charges in penalty notices and ensuring that penalties are imposed based on valid grounds.