2023 (7) TMI 690 - HC - Income Tax

Penalty under section 271(1)(c) set aside for failing to specify whether concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars was alleged

Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central) -2 Versus Gopal Kumar Goyal

Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central) -2 Versus Gopal Kumar Goyal - [2024] 462 ITR 313 (Del), [2023] 153 taxmann.com 534 (Delhi) Issues:1. Condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal.2. Whether penalty proceedings were initiated correctly under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.Issue 1: Condonation of DelayAn application was filed seeking condonation of a 220-day delay in re-filing the appeal. The delay was condoned by the Court for the reasons given in the application.Issue 2: Penalty Proceedings under Section 271(1)(c)The appeal pertained to Assessment Year 2004-05 and challenged the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The central issue was whether the penalty proceedings were flawed due to the notice failing to specify the limb of Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act under which proceedings were initiated. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the respondent, stating that the Assessing Officer did not clearly indicate whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The Court emphasized the need for the AO to specify the limb of Section 271(1)(c) triggered against the assessee. The penalty order was set aside based on precedents emphasizing the importance of clearly indicating the basis for penalty proceedings.In conclusion, the Court found that the Assessing Officer failed to clearly reflect his satisfaction in the penalty notice regarding the specific limb of Section 271(1)(c) applicable to the respondent. The judgment highlighted the distinction between concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars, emphasizing the need for the AO to specify the basis for penalty proceedings. The appeal was closed as no substantial question of law was found to arise for consideration.