9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (2) TMI 1919 - AT - Income TaxPenalty u/s 271(1)(c) - HELD THAT - Once the penalty proceedings have been dropped by the Assessing Officer, after considering the submissions made by the assessee, penalty cannot be imposed later on for the same assessment year on the same issue. Considering the facts in totality in the light of aforementioned order of the AO, we decline to interfere with the findings of the CIT(A).
Issues:
Appeal by Revenue against CIT(A) order deleting penalty under section 271(1)(c) for assessment year 2006-07. Analysis: The appeal and cross objection were filed against the CIT(A) order related to the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2006-07. The Revenue contended that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty amounting to ?20,32,218. The penalty proceedings were initiated based on a survey action under section 132 of the Act, and the assessee's return of income was accepted without any concealment or inaccuracies. The Assessing Officer, however, levied the penalty, which was later dropped on 28.03.2013. The CIT(A) found that the penalty cannot be imposed after dropping the proceedings, as per the provisions of the Act. The CIT(A) concluded that the penalty should not be levied based on the Assessing Officer's previous decision to drop the penalty proceedings. The Tribunal, after careful consideration, upheld the CIT(A) decision, stating that once the penalty proceedings have been dropped, it cannot be imposed later for the same assessment year on the same issue. The Tribunal declined to interfere with the findings of the CIT(A) and dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The Cross Objection by the assessee was in support of the CIT(A) order and required no separate adjudication. In summary, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A) decision to delete the penalty under section 271(1)(c) for the assessment year 2006-07, based on the previous dropping of penalty proceedings by the Assessing Officer. The appeal by the Revenue was dismissed, and the Cross Objection by the assessee supported the CIT(A) order.
|
