Defective s. 274 penalty notice for s. 271(1)(c) charge-failure to specify concealment vs inaccurate particulars, penalty deleted.

Penalty under s. 271(1)(c) was challenged on the ground that the s. 274 notice did not specify the exact charge. The ITAT held that the notice was a pro forma and reflected non-application of mind, as the AO failed to strike off the inapplicable limb and did not clearly indicate whether penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars, nor was requisite satisfaction properly recorded. Consequently, the penalty was held unsustainable in law and was deleted; the assessee's appeal was allowed.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1.1 Whether penalty proceedings and penalty order under section 271(1)(c) are vitiated where the notice under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) does not specify the particular limb (concealment of particulars of income vs furnishing inaccurate particulars of income) for which penalty is initiated.

1.2 Whether the penalty is unsustainable where the Assessing Officer issued subsequent show-cause communication without recording satisfaction and ultimately imposed penalty without specifying any definite charge under section 271(1)(c).

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

2.1 Validity of section 274 notice initiating penalty under section 271(1)(c) when the specific limb is not specified

2.1.1 Legal framework (as discussed by the Court): The Court examined the requirement of a valid notice under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) and treated specification of the charge-concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income-as integral to a lawful initiation of penalty proceedings.

2.1.2 Interpretation and reasoning: The Court scrutinised the notice dated 31.03.2014 and found it to be a proforma notice which mentioned both "concealed the particulars of such income" and "furnished inaccurate particulars of such income" without striking off or indicating the applicable limb. The Court held this to reflect non-application of mind, because the assessee was not put to notice of the precise allegation forming the foundation of penalty proceedings. The Court also noted that the assessment order similarly directed initiation of penalty for "furnishing inaccurate particulars and concealment of income", reinforcing ambiguity at initiation.

2.1.3 Conclusions: The Court conclusively held that initiation of penalty proceedings was defective because the notice did not specify the specific limb of section 271(1)(c). On this ground, the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) was held not sustainable in the eyes of law.

2.2 Effect of absence of recorded satisfaction and lack of specified charge in subsequent show-cause notice and penalty order

2.2.1 Legal framework (as discussed by the Court): The Court evaluated whether the manner of continuation and culmination of penalty proceedings-through subsequent notice and penalty order-demonstrated lawful satisfaction and a clear charge consistent with section 271(1)(c).

2.2.2 Interpretation and reasoning: The Court examined the show-cause notice dated 04.08.2016 and found that it contained no recorded satisfaction and did not articulate any specific default under section 271(1)(c). The Court further examined the penalty order dated 15.01.2018 and noted that it proceeded on the basis that the assessee "has nothing to say regarding concealment ... and furnishing inaccurate particulars", again employing both limbs without pinning down a definitive charge. This was treated as continuing the foundational defect and confirming lack of clarity and application of mind throughout the penalty proceedings.

2.2.3 Conclusions: The Court held that, coupled with the defective initiation notice, the absence of satisfaction in the subsequent notice and the failure to specify a clear charge in the penalty order vitiated the penalty proceedings. Consequently, the penalty under section 271(1)(c) was deleted and the appeal was allowed.

---