2023 (7) TMI 1313 - HC - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - defective notice u/s 274 - non specification of clear/specific charge - HELD THAT - The notice issued to the assessee with regard to imposition of penalty did not specify the appropriate limb under which the penalty is sought to be imposed as to whether the penalty was being imposed for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars. As relying on MS. MINU BAKSHI 2022 (7) TMI 1307 - DELHI HIGH COURT notice for imposition of penalty u/s 271(1) (c) of the Act, did not specify which limb of the said provision the penalty was sought to be levied, is covered in case M/S SSA'S EMERALD MEADOWS 2016 (8) TMI 1145 - SC ORDER , MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY 2013 (7) TMI 620 - KARNATAKA HIGH and M/S SSA S EMERALD MEADOWS 2015 (11) TMI 1620 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT COURT stating that clear specification of charge is mandatory before issuing penalty notice - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Condonation of delay in filing and re-filing the appeal.
2. Appeal against the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Condonation of Delay:
The appellant/revenue sought condonation of a 21-day delay in filing the appeal and a 60-day delay in re-filing. The respondent/assessee's counsel had no objection to the condonation, and the court ordered accordingly, disposing of the applications.

Appeal Concerning Penalty Order:
The appeal pertained to Assessment Year 2008-09, challenging the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's order dated 06.09.2022, which upheld the order passed by the Commission of Income Tax (Appeals) setting aside the penalty order under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Both the Tribunal and the CIT(A) found that the notice for penalty did not specify whether it was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars, leading to the penalty order being set aside.

Precedents and Legal Observations:
The court referred to a previous case where it was observed that the notice for penalty must specify the limb under which the penalty is imposed, either for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Citing relevant decisions, the court concluded that the notice in this case did not clearly specify the charge against the respondent/assessee, aligning with previous judgments by the Karnataka High Court and a coordinate bench of the court. As a result, no substantial question of law was found to arise, and the appeal was closed, with pending applications also being closed.

This summary highlights the issues of condonation of delay and the appeal against the penalty order, emphasizing the importance of clearly specifying the grounds for imposing penalties in legal notices.