2017 (11) TMI 2040 - AT - Income Tax

Levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - additions u/s 2(22)(e) towards deemed dividend, unexplained jewellery, interest disallowance u/s 14A - HELD THAT - As in the quantum proceedings, the Coordinate Bench has deleted the additions towards unexplained jewellery and interest income, we find the same to be correct as apparent from the following findings of the Coordinate Bench in 2017 (9) TMI 473 - ITAT JAIPUR . Thus where the additions which were the subject matter for levy of penalty has been deleted, there is no basis for levy of penalty and hence, the same is hereby deleted. Penalty on deemed dividend - Following the consistent position taken by the Coordinate Benches in assessee s group cases 2016 (4) TMI 71 - ITAT JAIPUR and 2016 (6) TMI 1475 - ITAT JAIPUR where the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) has been deleted business transaction is not covered under section 2(22)(e) the penalty levied in the instant case is hereby deleted as there are no changes in the facts and circumstances of the case. Appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Summary

Issues involved:
Appeal against the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for assessment under section u/s 153A r.w.s 143(3) for AY 2008-09.

Analysis:
1. Background: The appeal was filed by the assessee challenging the penalty imposed by the AO under section 271(1)(c) amounting to Rs. 7,41,060 in relation to the assessment completed for AY 2008-09.
2. Search and Seizure Operations: The search and seizure operations were conducted on the business and residential premises of the assessee group leading to the assessment u/s 153A r.w.s 143(3) completed on 24.12.2009 with total income of Rs. 1,26,32,909 and additions made under various sections.
3. Quantum Proceedings: The Coordinate Bench deleted the additions towards unexplained jewellery and interest income, citing CBDT Circular and High Court judgments, which formed the basis for the penalty. Consequently, the penalty was deleted as there was no basis for its levy.
4. Deemed Dividend Penalty: The AO treated advances made by the assessee as deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e), which was accepted by the assessee. However, the Coordinate Bench in similar cases within the group deleted penalties on deemed dividend, emphasizing that the transactions were part of regular business and commercial expediency, leading to the deletion of penalty in the instant case as well.
5. Consistent Decisions: The Coordinate Benches consistently deleted penalties in the group cases under section 271(1)(c) where similar issues arose, maintaining the penalty levied in the instant case was unjustified, resulting in the deletion of the penalty imposed on the assessee.
6. Final Decision: Considering the precedents and the facts of the case, the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) was deleted, and the appeal of the assessee was allowed.

This detailed analysis highlights the grounds of appeal, quantum proceedings, treatment of deemed dividend, and the consistent approach of the Coordinate Benches in similar cases, leading to the deletion of the penalty in the present matter.