AO must specify exact limb of section 271(1)(c) at initiation and imposition stages for valid penalty

The ITAT Mumbai held that penalty orders under section 271(1)(c) are invalid when the AO fails to specify which limb of the provision applies at both initiation and imposition stages. The tribunal emphasized that penalty notices under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) must contain specific charges rather than general allegations, as ambiguous notices violate mandatory procedural requirements. Following precedent from Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh, the tribunal ruled that failure to meet mandatory communication requirements renders the penalty proceedings fatal, requiring no further proof of invalidity. The assessee's appeal was allowed.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to penalty order under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Year 2015-16 based on defective notice issued by the Assessing Officer.

Analysis:
1. Additional Ground Raised by Assessee:
- Assessee challenged the penalty imposition of Rs. 10,46,312 under section 271(1)(c) due to a defective notice issued by the Assessing Officer. The additional ground raised was admitted for adjudication based on legal nature.

2. Assessee's Argument:
- Assessee's counsel argued that the notice issued by the Assessing Officer did not specify a specific charge for the penalty, citing judicial precedents. The counsel emphasized that a specific charge is essential for maintaining the penalty.

3. Revenue's Counter-Argument:
- The Senior DR for the Revenue referred to a different case law to counter the assessee's submissions. It was argued that the defect in the notice did not cause real prejudice or breach of natural justice principles, and thus, the penalty was rightfully imposed.

4. Judicial Precedent Analysis:
- The Tribunal analyzed the judicial precedents cited by both parties. It was noted that a contravention of a mandatory condition for communication to be valid is fatal, and a notice must be precise and unambiguous. The Tribunal followed the precedent set by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Bombay in a similar case and deleted the penalty.

5. Decision and Conclusion:
- The Tribunal found that the facts of the present case were different from the case cited by the Revenue. Relying on the judicial precedent, the penalty imposed on the assessee was deleted due to the defective notice issued by the Assessing Officer. Consequently, the appeal of the assessee was allowed.

6. Final Order:
- The Tribunal pronounced the order on 28 June 2024, allowing the appeal of the assessee and deleting the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) for Assessment Year 2015-16.

---