Balaji Telefilms Limited Vs. DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)
The issue under consideration is whether the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) without specifying the limb will be sustain under law?
ITAT states that, it has been held by Hon’ble Court that the notice would have to specifically state the ground mentioned in Section 271(1)(c) of the Act namely as to whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing of incorrect particulars of the income. Further, issuing printed form would not satisfy the requirement of law since the assessee should know the ground which he has to meet specifically otherwise the principles of natural justice would be violated and consequently, no penalty could be imposed on the assessee if there is no specific ground mentioned in the notice. HC find that similar is the case here since appropriate limb has not been specified in the subject notice and therefore, the principles of natural justice could be said to be have been violated. More or less, similar proposition has been laid in other binding judicial precedents as tabulated by us. In other words, failure to frame specific charge against the assessee during penalty proceedings would be fatal to penalty proceedings itself and the same could not be sustained in the eyes of law. The revenue is unable to demonstrate that specific charge was ever framed and confronted to the assessee during penalty proceedings. Therefore, respectfully following the binding judicial precedents favoring the assessee, on the issue. For the aforesaid reasons, the provisions of Explanation-5A to Section 271(1)(c), as invoked by learned first appellate authority for the first time, which were never invoked by Ld. AO and which was never confronted to the assessee during penalty proceedings, could also not be sustained.
FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT JUDGEMENT
1.1 Aforesaid appeals, all by assessee, for Assessment Years [in short referred to as ‘AY’] 2007-08 to 2012-13 & 2014-15 contest separate orders of learned first appellate authority qua confirmation of penalty. Since the penalty stem from common set of facts and circumstances, the appeals were heard together and now being disposed-off by way of this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity.
1.2 For ease of reference, the details of assessment framed, penalty levied etc. in various years could be tabulated in the following manner: –
