2012 (7) TMI 422 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271(1)( c) on the ground of case selected for security the levy is in mandatory Held that - Since the retrospective application of proviso (iv) to section 80HHC is still pending with various Courts, the penalty issue arising out of non implementation of this section cannot be imposed till the final decision of Court relating to applicability of proviso (iv) to section 80HHC. In view of the appeal, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Summary

Issues:
- Challenge to the dismissal of appeal by Ld CIT(A) summarily
- Challenge to the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c)
- Challenge to the impugned order for not examining material facts
- Challenge to the penalty amount and its attribution to a specific issue

Dismissal of Appeal by Ld CIT(A): The appellant challenged the dismissal of the appeal by Ld CIT(A) summarily, contending that the order violated the provisions of section 250(6) by not providing a written order stating points for determination, decision thereon, and reasons. The appellant's request for adjournment was allegedly overlooked. The Ld CIT(A) upheld the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer due to non-prosecution by the appellant. However, the Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, considering the pending matter related to the retrospective application of a specific section.

Levy of Penalty u/s 271(1)(c): The appellant contested the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for concealing and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Assessing Officer initiated the penalty citing non-agreement with the appellant's contentions. The Ld CIT(A) dismissed the appeal due to non-prosecution by the appellant. The appellant argued that the penalty should be kept in abeyance as the subject matter leading to the penalty was pending in various Courts. The Tribunal, after considering the arguments, allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, emphasizing that the penalty issue cannot be imposed until the final decision of the Court regarding the retrospective application of a specific section.

Failure to Examine Material Facts: The appellant challenged the impugned order for not examining and appreciating material facts crucial for a decision in accordance with the law. The Tribunal's decision to allow the appeal for statistical purposes was based on the ongoing legal proceedings related to the retrospective application of a particular section. This indicates the importance of thorough examination and consideration of material facts in reaching a legal decision.

Penalty Amount and Specific Issue: The appellant contested the levy of a penalty amount attributable to a highly debatable issue, questioning the sustainability of the penalty in light of relevant circulars. The Tribunal's decision to allow the appeal for statistical purposes highlighted the significance of awaiting the final decision of the Court on the applicability of a specific provision before imposing penalties. This emphasizes the need for precise attribution of penalty amounts to specific issues and compliance with relevant legal provisions.

In conclusion, the judgment by the Appellate Tribunal ITAT, Delhi addressed various challenges raised by the appellant regarding the dismissal of the appeal, levy of penalty, examination of material facts, and attribution of penalty amounts to specific issues. The decision to allow the appeal for statistical purposes underscored the importance of legal proceedings related to the retrospective application of specific sections in determining the imposition of penalties and upholding legal principles.