“penalty proceedings initiated”
The decision most relied on for penalty proceedings initiated is CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (359 ITR 565), cited in 2,590 judgments on BharatTax.
Leading authorities on penalty proceedings initiated
A penalty notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) is invalid if it fails to specify whether the penalty proceedings are initiated for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. This non-specification vitiates the penalty proceedings.
The assessment order must clearly specify the reason for initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) and explicitly state whether it is for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Failure to identify the specific limb under which penalty is initiated renders the penalty unsustainable.
A voluntary disclosure of income does not automatically exempt an assessee from penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c). The Assessing Officer must satisfy himself about initiating penalty proceedings during the assessment, but is not required to record this satisfaction in a specific written manner.
The lack of jurisdiction to initiate reassessment proceedings under Section 147/148 cannot be waived and can be challenged at a later stage, even if not raised initially. An invalid reassessment due to such jurisdictional defects cannot sustain subsequent penalty proceedings.
The Supreme Court, by dismissing the Special Leave Petition, affirmed that a penalty notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act is invalid if the Assessing Officer fails to specify the exact limb (furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income) under which the penalty is initiated. This failure to frame a specific charge vitiates the penalty proceedings.
The assessing officer must record explicit satisfaction in the assessment order for initiating penalty proceedings under sections like 271D, 271E, 269SS, 269T, or 269ST; a mere recommendation or information to another authority is insufficient to validate the penalty.
The Assessing Officer must record clear satisfaction in the assessment order that the assessee concealed particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars, for initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c). Without such recorded satisfaction, the penalty proceedings lack jurisdiction and are unsustainable in law.
When no specific statutory period of limitation exists, proceedings under Section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Income-tax Act, particularly for payments to non-residents, must be initiated within a reasonable period of four years. This limitation also applies to consequential penalty proceedings under Section 271C.
