2015 (11) TMI 1291 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s.271(1)(c) - Addition(s) made on account of unexplained household expenditure and undisclosed capital gain - CIT(A) deleted the penalty - Held that - As in quantum proceeding the Tribunal was pleased to restore the appeals to the file of ld.CIT(A), thus these penalty appeals may also be restored back to the file of ld.CIT(A). We hereby set aside the order of the ld.CIT(A) and restore these appeals to the file of ld.CIT(A) for decision afresh in accordance with law. Decided in favour of Revenue for statistical purposes.

Summary

Issues:
Appeals against deletion of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for Assessment Year 2006-07.

Analysis:

1. Grounds of Appeal:
The appeals were directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleting the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The common grounds raised by the Assessees included errors in law and facts by the CIT(A), questioning the basis of penalty levy, and seeking restoration of the Assessing Officer's order.

2. Factual Background:
The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings based on unexplained household expenditure and undisclosed capital gain. Subsequently, penalties were imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Assessees appealed to the CIT(A) who allowed the appeals, leading to the present appeals before the Tribunal.

3. Judicial Review:
During the proceedings, the Assessee's counsel referred to a Tribunal decision that remitted similar appeals back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT-DR did not object to this proposition. The Tribunal analyzed the orders of the authorities below and the Tribunal's decision, which directed the CIT(A) to delete the penalties imposed.

4. Tribunal's Decision:
The Tribunal noted that the very basis of the penalties did not survive due to the Tribunal's order remitting the appeals back to the CIT(A). Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for fresh decision in accordance with the law. The appeals of the Revenue were allowed for statistical purposes.

5. Outcome:
The Tribunal allowed all three appeals of the Revenue for statistical purposes, directing the CIT(A) to decide afresh on the penalty issue. The order was pronounced in court on a specified date in Ahmedabad.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the grounds of appeal, factual background, judicial review, the Tribunal's decision, and the final outcome of the appeals, providing a comprehensive understanding of the legal issues involved in the case.