2021 (3) TMI 1104 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - whether the penalty proceedings is initiated for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income and therefore the impugned penalty order passed deserves to be cancelled? - HELD THAT - As penalty notice does not specify whether the penalty was proposed for concealment of particulars of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of such income in terms of provisions of Section 271(1)(c). The Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory 2013 (7) TMI 620 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT held that notice under section 274 should specifically state the grounds mentioned in section 271(1)(c) of the Act i.e. whether it is for concealment of income or for furnishing of incorrect particulars of income. Sending printed form where all the grounds mentioned in section 271 are mentioned would not satisfy requirement of law. Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Sahara India Life Insurance Co. Ltd. 2019 (8) TMI 409 - DELHI HIGH COURT reiterated that notice under section 274 should specifically state the grounds on which penalty was sought to be imposed as the assessee should know the grounds which he has to meet specifically. The aforesaid principle has been reiterated in the in the case of CIT vs. SSA S Emerald Meadows 2015 (11) TMI 1620 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT In the present case too in notice dated 05.12.2011 and on 08.12.2014 issued under section 274 read with section 271 of the Act initiated penalty against the appellant for alleged concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of such income that is to say the specific default was not specified by the assessing officer in the notice issued. Since the notice u/s 274 has not been specified as to whether penalty is proposed for alleged concealment of income OR furnishing of inaccurate particulars of such income the penalty levied is hereby obliterated. Appeals of the assessee are allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Admission of additional grounds of appeal under Rule 11 of ITAT Rules, 1963.
Validity of penalty notice under section 271(1)(c) for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.

Issue 1: Admission of Additional Grounds of Appeal
The appellant filed an application under Rule 11 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 seeking admission of additional grounds of appeal challenging the penalty order under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The additional ground raised questioned the validity of the penalty order, arguing that the notice did not specify whether the penalty proceedings were initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income. The Additional Member accepted the additional ground based on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, emphasizing that the Tribunal has the widest possible powers to consider new grounds, especially when they arise from the facts on record in the assessment proceedings. The Tribunal remanded the proceedings to consider the new grounds raised by the appellant on their merits.

Issue 2: Validity of Penalty Notice
The appellant contended that the penalty notice issued by the Assessing Officer was defective as it did not specify whether the penalty was proposed for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, as required by Section 271(1)(c). Citing precedents, including the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court and the Delhi High Court, it was argued that the notice should explicitly state the grounds on which the penalty is sought to be imposed to enable the assessee to respond adequately. The Tribunal found that the penalty notice indeed lacked specificity regarding the nature of the default for which the penalty was imposed. Relying on the jurisprudence established by the Jurisdictional High Court, the Tribunal held that since the notice did not specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, the penalty levied was unsustainable. Consequently, both appeals of the assessee were allowed, and the penalty was annulled.

In conclusion, the Tribunal admitted the additional grounds of appeal under Rule 11 of the ITAT Rules, 1963 and invalidated the penalty levied on the appellant due to the defective penalty notice that failed to specify the grounds for the penalty under section 271(1)(c). The judgment emphasized the importance of clearly stating the basis for imposing penalties to ensure fairness and compliance with legal requirements.