2018 (8) TMI 1925 - HC - Income Tax

Penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) - ITAT deleted the penalty levied - HELD THAT - It is required to be noted and it is also in dispute that while passing the impugned order, the learned Tribunal has relied upon its own decision in respect of the sister concern of the respondent - assessee, with respect to the same land. It is reported that the decision of the Tribunal has been confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in AMBALAL SARABHAI ENTERPRISE LTD 2018 (3) TMI 1838 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT and allied matters. Under the circumstances, the issues raised are concluded against the Department. No substantial questions of law arise in this Appeal.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to deletion of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act by the learned ITAT without appreciating the facts discussed in the orders of the CIT(A) and the AO.

Analysis:

1. The judgment involves a challenge to the deletion of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act by the learned ITAT for the Assessment Year 2008-2009. The Revenue appealed against the order dated 29.11.2017 passed by the ITAT, Ahmedabad "C" Bench. The proposed questions of law included whether the ITAT erred in law and on facts in deleting the penalty without considering the justifications provided by the CIT(A) and the AO, and whether the decision was supported by Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c).

2. The High Court noted that the Tribunal relied on its own decision regarding the sister concern of the respondent-assessee concerning the same land. This previous decision was confirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court in Tax Appeal No.233/2018 and allied matters. The Court highlighted that the issues raised in the present case were already concluded against the Department due to the previous decision.

3. After considering the arguments presented by both parties, the Court found that no substantial questions of law arose in the appeal. The Court concluded that the issues raised by the Revenue were already settled by the previous decision of the Division Bench. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, stating that the appeal deserved to be dismissed in light of the previous decision and the lack of new substantial legal questions.

4. The judgment emphasizes the importance of consistency in legal decisions and highlights the significance of precedent in determining the outcome of similar cases. The Court's decision to dismiss the appeal underscores the principle of judicial finality and the binding nature of previous judgments on subsequent cases involving similar legal issues. The judgment serves as a reminder of the legal doctrine of stare decisis and the impact of prior decisions on the resolution of current disputes in the legal system.