2025 (7) TMI 1041 - AT - Income Tax

AO cannot impose section 271(1)(c) penalty without recording satisfaction on income concealment or incorrect particulars

The Ruby Mills Limited Versus DCIT, Circle – 8 (3) (1), Mumbai

The ITAT Mumbai held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) for disallowance of short-term capital loss was invalid. The AO initiated penalty proceedings ... Penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) - Disallowance of short term capital loss - HELD THAT:- AO initiated penalty without recording his satisfaction whether the assessee concealed and the income or furnished any incorrect particular. It is an admitted fact that addition/disallowance on first appeal was upheld. It is settled position in law that penalty proceeding are separate and independent. No doubt penalty is initiated on the basis of certain additions or disallowances made in the assessment. It is also settled position in the law that mere disallowance of any claim per se would not lead to levy of penalty. The language of section 271(1)(c) also suggest that penalty may be initiated on the satisfaction of AO or Joint Commissioner or Commissioner (Appeal) or Principal Commissioner of Income Tax during the course of any proceeding. Thus, penalty proceedings must base on satisfaction of Income Tax Authority. The satisfaction must be recorded with cogent reasons as it is based on discretion of such authorities. Adverting to the facts of present case, we find that no specific charge was indicated in the show cause notice u/s 271(1) r.w.s. 274 by AO. Hence, we find convincing force in the submission of assessee. ISSUES: Whether penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act can be sustained where the Assessing Officer has not recorded satisfaction specifying whether penalty is for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Whether a show cause notice under section 271(1)(c) read with section 274 is valid if it fails to specify the limb under which penalty is sought to be imposed. Whether mere disallowance of a claim, including short term capital loss, amounts to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income attracting penalty under section 271(1)(c). Whether invocation of Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) is justified where the assessee has made a bona fide claim and furnished all relevant particulars. Whether penalty under section 271(1)(c) can be levied in absence of mens rea or deliberate attempt to conceal income or furnish inaccurate particulars. Whether failure of the assessee to respond to the show cause notice justifies penalty under section 271(1)(c). RULINGS / HOLDINGS: The penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be sustained where the Assessing Officer has not recorded his satisfaction with cogent reasons specifying whether penalty is for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, as the show cause notice is then 'not in accordance with the provisions of law' and 'without application of mind'. A show cause notice under section 271(1)(c) read with section 274 must specifically indicate the limb under which penalty is proposed; failure to do so renders the penalty proceedings 'void ab initio'. Mere disallowance of a claim, including short term capital loss, does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income; 'mere making a claim which is not sustainable in law, by itself will not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars'. Invocation of Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) is not justified where the assessee has made a bona fide claim and furnished all material facts; wrongful or incorrect claim without dishonest intention does not attract penalty. Penalty under section 271(1)(c) requires mens rea or deliberate concealment; absence of 'active concealment or deliberate furnishing of inaccurate particulars' negates penalty liability. Non-response to show cause notice alone does not justify penalty where detailed submissions have been made before appellate authorities and bona fide claim is established. RATIONALE: The Court applied the statutory framework under sections 271(1)(c) and 274 of the Income Tax Act, emphasizing the requirement of recorded satisfaction by the Assessing Officer as a precondition for valid penalty proceedings. The Court relied on settled legal principles and precedents from various High Courts and the Supreme Court, including the ruling that penalty proceedings must be initiated with clear specification of the charge (concealment or inaccurate particulars), and that mere disallowance of claims does not attract penalty. The Court distinguished cases where Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) was invoked on facts showing deliberate concealment, holding that such explanation cannot be applied where the claim is bona fide and all particulars were furnished. The Court noted that penalty proceedings are separate and independent from assessment proceedings, requiring independent satisfaction and reasoned recording by the tax authorities. The decision reflects a doctrinal adherence to principles of natural justice and procedural fairness, invalidating penalty proceedings initiated without proper application of mind or specification of charges. No dissenting or concurring opinions were noted.