Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal is against an order confirming a penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The penalty was levied pursuant to an assessment order where the assessee's returned income was accepted without addition.
Held
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under section 271(1)(c) was defective because it was in a printed format and did not strike off inapplicable portions, failing to specify the exact charge. Therefore, the penalty is not maintainable.
Key Issues
Whether the penalty notice issued under section 271(1)(c) is valid when it fails to specify the exact charge by not striking off inapplicable portions in its printed format.
Sections Cited
271(1)(c), 250, 148, 139(1), 139(2), 142(1), 143(3), 274, 22(1), 22(2), 34, 22(4), 23(2)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCHES “B” :: PUNE
Before: DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE
ORDER
PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM:
This appeal filed by the Assessee is against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)[NFAC], passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for A.Y.2013-14, dated 18.03.2025 emanating from Penalty Order u/s.271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act, dated 24.02.2017. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal : “GROUNDS OF APPEAL “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law Ld CIT(A) has erred in confirming penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of Rs 8,92,000/- in respect of income duly disclosed voluntarily in the return in response to notice u/s 148.
2. Whether the impugned notice issued u/s 271(1)(c) rws 274 in printed format is valid without specifying any specific charge vitiating the penalty notice and penalty order liable to be quashed.
3. Without prejudice to above CIT(A) has erred in confirming the computation penalty not specified in the said section.
4. The Appellant prays to adduce such further evidence to substantiate his case
5. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter and delete any of the above grounds and add any additional ground(s) either before or at the time of hearing.” Submission of ld.AR :
2. Ld.AR submitted paper book, invited our attention to the notice u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act, dated 29.09.2016. She submitted that the relevant limb has not been striked out. She relied on the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the decision of PCIT Vs. Golden Peace Hotels and Resorts Pvt. Ltd. 2.1 She submitted that in the assessment order, Assessee’s returned income has been accepted and there is no addition. She further pleaded that no penalty can be levied and there is no addition. She relied on the decision of ITAT Delhi Bench in the [A] case of Meeta Gutgutia Vs. ACIT in vide order dated 31.03.2016. Submission of ld.DR :
3. Ld.DR for the Revenue relied on the order of Assessing Officer and ld.CIT(A).
Findings & Analysis : 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. In this case, notice u/s.148 was issued to the Assessee on 30.10.2015 for A.Y.2013-14. In response to the notice u/s.148 of the Act, Assessee filed Return of Income for A.Y.2013-14 electronically declaring total income at Rs.45,29,625/-. The Assessing Officer issued various notices. Assessing Officer passed assessment order u/s.143(3) r.w.s 148 of the Act, on 29.09.2016 accepting the returned income at Rs.45,29,625/-. Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act.
We have perused the notice u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act, dated 29.09.2016 and observed that it is in a printed format, the Assessing Officer has not specified whether it is concealment or filing 3 inaccurate particulars or Non-Compliance to notice u/s.142(1), 22(4). The relevant notice is scanned and reproduced as under :
As can be seen from the above notice, the Assessing Officer has not bothered to mention the relevant provisions. It is a vague notice.
7. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Golden Peace Hotels and Resorts Pvt. Ltd, has held as under : “6. Besides, we note that the Division Bench of this Court in Samson (supra) as well as in New Era Sova Mine (supra) has held that the notice which is issued to the assessee must indicate whether the Assessing Officer is satisfied that the case of the assessee involves concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income or both, with clarity. If the notice is issued in the printed form, then, the necessary portions which are not applicable are required to be struck off, so as to indicate with clarity the nature of the satisfaction recorded. In both Samson Perinchery and New Era Sova Mine (supra), the notices issued had not struck off the portion which were inapplicable. From this, the Division Bench concluded that there was no proper record of satisfaction or proper application of mind in matter of initiation of penalty proceedings.
In the present case, as well if the notice dated 30/09/16 (at page 32) is perused, it is apparent that the inapplicable portions have not been struck off. This coupled with the fact adverted to in paragraph (5) of this order, leaves no ground for interference with the impugned order. The impugned order is quite consistent with the law laid down in the case of Samson Perinchery and New Era Sova Mine (supra) and therefore, warrants no interference.
8. The contention based upon MAK Data (P.) Ltd.(supra) also does not appeal to us in the peculiar facts of the present case. The notice in the present case is itself defective and further, there is no finding or 5 satisfaction recorded in relation to concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars.
9. In Tax Appeal No.24 of 2019, based upon the identical facts, we decline to admit the appeal, in which, the same substantial question of law was urged. Therefore, following our order in Tax Appeal No.24 of 2019 as well, we are not inclined to admit this appeal.”
It is observed that Revenue’s appeal against decision of Hon’ble High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Golden Peace Hotels and Resorts Pvt. Ltd., has been dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (c) No 9919/2020 vide order dated 29.11.2022.
In these facts and circumstances of the case, respectfully following Hon’ble Bombay High Court, we hold that penalty u/s.271(1)(c) is not maintainable. Accordingly, Assessing Officer is directed to delete the penalty. Accordingly, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed.