Tribunal quashes penalty under Income-tax Act due to discrepancy in penalty initiation and imposition

The tribunal quashed the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, finding a discrepancy between the grounds for penalty initiation and the actual penalty imposed for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The tribunal emphasized the necessity of proper satisfaction for penalty proceedings and highlighted the importance of adhering to established legal principles. Consequently, the appeal of the assessee was allowed, stressing the significance of prima facie satisfaction as a jurisdictional fact for initiating penal proceedings under section 271(1)(c).

---

---

Issues:
The judgment involves a challenge to the imposition of a penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2016-17.

Summary:
The appeal challenges the order of penalty passed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre, upholding the penalty imposed by the lower tax authorities for under-reporting or mis-reporting of income by the assessee.

The main issue in the appeal is the discrepancy between the action of imposing a penalty under section 271(1)(c) and the satisfaction recorded in the assessment order for under-reporting or mis-reporting of income.

Upon hearing both parties and examining the material on record, the tribunal considered the legal position and relevant case laws before making its decision.

The tribunal observed that the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings for under-reporting/mis-reporting of income but ultimately levied the penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, a discrepancy upheld by the CIT(A).

Referring to section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the tribunal emphasized that the satisfaction of concealing or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income is essential for initiating penalty proceedings.

In this case, the tribunal found that the Assessing Officer's satisfaction for under-reporting/mis-reporting of income during reassessment did not align with the penalty imposed for furnishing inaccurate particulars, indicating a lack of proper application of mind.

Based on the facts and legal analysis, the tribunal concluded that the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) was flawed and contrary to established legal principles, leading to the decision to quash the penalty.

Ultimately, the tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, highlighting the importance of the prima facie satisfaction required for initiating penal proceedings under section 271(1)(c) as a jurisdictional fact.

The judgment was pronounced in open court on the specified date in accordance with the ITAT Rules.

---