2017 (5) TMI 1601 - HC - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271 1 (c) - additions made and denied the deduction under Section 80IA - Held that - When the learned Tribunal as thought it fit to remit the matters to the Assessing Officer to consider it after the quantum appeals preferred by the assessee which are pending before this Court are decided and disposed of and thereafter to consider the same in accordance with law, it cannot be said that the learned Tribunal has committed any error. It is not in dispute that as such, the learned Tribunal has kept it open to consider the issue with respect to the penalty under Section 271 1 (c) of the Act to be considered in accordance with law and on merits. No substantial question of law.

Summary

Issues:
1. Common question of law and facts arising in a group of Appeals with respect to penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act.
2. Tribunal remitting the matters back to the Assessing Officer pending the decision on quantum appeals.
3. Dispute regarding the imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) based on additions made and deduction denied under Section 80IA of the Act.
4. Tribunal's decision to consider the penalty independently after the quantum appeals are decided.

Analysis:

1. The High Court dealt with a group of Appeals concerning the imposition of penalties under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The Appeals were related to the same assessee but for different assessment years, and the common judgment by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was challenged.

2. The Tribunal had remitted the matters back to the Assessing Officer to consider the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) after the quantum appeals pending before the High Court were decided. This decision was made to ensure a coherent approach to the penalty issue once the quantum appeals were resolved.

3. The dispute arose from the Assessing Officer's imposition of penalties based on additions made and the denial of deduction under Section 80IA of the Act to the assessee. The Court noted that the outcome of the pending quantum appeals would directly impact the question of imposing penalties under Section 271(1)(c).

4. The Court emphasized that if the quantum appeals favored the assessee, no penalty under Section 271(1)(c) would be applicable. However, if the appeals were dismissed, the penalty issue would be considered independently in accordance with the law and relevant judicial decisions.

5. The Court found that the Tribunal's decision to remit the penalty matters back to the Assessing Officer was appropriate, given the circumstances and the pending quantum appeals. It was acknowledged that the Tribunal had kept the option open to consider the penalty issue in compliance with the law and on its merits.

6. Ultimately, the Court concluded that no substantial question of law was raised by the Revenue. Therefore, all the Tax Appeals were dismissed based on the reasons stated in the judgment, affirming the Tribunal's decision to remit the penalty matters for further consideration.

This detailed analysis highlights the key aspects of the judgment, including the issues addressed, the Tribunal's decision-making process, and the Court's final ruling on the Appeals.