2017 (8) TMI 1527 - HC - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - addition of compulsory acquisition by NHAI - deemed consideration under Section 50C - HELD THAT - Addition was wrongly made and the assessee has furnished all material facts before the AO under these facts the assessing officer ought not to have levied the penalty. We find force into the contention of the assessee that in the penalty proceeding the AO should consider the facts in right perspective. He should come to a specific finding with regard to concealment of income. In the considered view, the explanation as given by the assessee ought to have been considered by the AO, AO should not to have passed penalty order in a mechanical way merely on the assumption that the assessee has accepted the charge of concealment of income. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Assailing the Tribunal's judgment under Section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961.
- Questions of law framed by the Counsel for the appellant.

Analysis:
The appellant challenged the Tribunal's decision where the appeal by the assessee under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was allowed. The Counsel for the appellant framed three questions of law for consideration. The first question pertained to the justification of deleting the penalty levied in respect of an addition of a specific amount. The second question raised whether the Tribunal was justified in deleting the penalty without an appeal against the quantum order. The third question queried the validity of the Tribunal's finding in light of the facts and circumstances of the case.

The Tribunal's observations highlighted the appellant's contentions regarding specific additions made by the assessing officer. The Tribunal noted that one of the additions was wrongly made, and the appellant had provided all material facts to the assessing officer. The Tribunal found merit in the appellant's argument that the penalty should not have been levied, emphasizing that the assessing officer should have considered the facts in the right perspective and not passed the penalty order mechanically. The Tribunal concluded that the explanation provided by the appellant should have been duly considered, and the penalty should not have been imposed solely on the assumption of concealment of income.

Ultimately, the High Court found no reason to interfere with the matter, stating that no substantial question of law arose. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the Tribunal's decision to delete the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.