2013 (12) TMI 191 - AT - Income Tax

Stay of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) Held that - As per the provisions of Section 275(1)(a) of the Act Assessing Officer cannot pass an order imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act till relevant assessment is subject matter of appeal before ld. CIT(A) (i.e. the first appellate authority). By the same analogy CIT(A) shall not undertake penalty proceedings till the disposal of appeal by the Tribunal In view of the powers conferred u/s 254(1) and Following M.K. Mohammad Kunhi 1968 (9) TMI 5 - SUPREME Court To prevent multiplicity of proceedings and harassment to the assessee - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Stay of penalty proceedings initiated by CIT(A) u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.

Analysis:
The appellant, a company engaged in various activities, had penalty proceedings initiated by CIT(A) u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act after adjustments were made to its income in the assessment. The CIT(A) enhanced the income by disallowing bad debts and making transfer pricing adjustments, leading to the penalty proceedings. The appellant sought a stay on the penalty proceedings until the appeal on the quantum proceedings was decided by the Tribunal, citing provisions of Section 275(1)(a) of the Act.

The appellant argued that the CIT(A) was acting hastily by not waiting for the Tribunal's decision on the quantum appeal, which could impact the penalty proceedings. They relied on legal precedents to support their case, emphasizing that a stay would prevent undue hardship. The appellant's counsel invoked the inherent powers of the Tribunal to grant a stay on the penalty proceedings until the quantum appeal was resolved.

The Departmental Representative opposed the stay, citing a Supreme Court decision that Tribunals cannot assume powers inconsistent with the Act. However, no arguments were presented on the merits of the case. After considering both parties' submissions and relevant case laws, the Tribunal found that the penalty proceedings were initiated based on the CIT(A)'s order, which was under appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal noted that the appellant's contention of having a prima facie case in their favor was unopposed by the Revenue.

The Tribunal, in line with Section 275(1)(a) of the Act, concluded that the penalty proceedings should be stayed until the quantum appeal was decided to avoid prejudice to the appellant and prevent multiple proceedings. Citing its appellate powers under Section 254(1) of the Act and legal precedents, the Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to keep the penalty proceedings in abeyance until the quantum appeal was resolved. This decision aimed to prevent harassment to the appellant and ensure a fair process. The Stay Application filed by the appellant was allowed by the Tribunal.