2017 (8) TMI 129 - HC - Income Tax

Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) - Held that - In the event the revenue files an appeal the rights of the assessee would not be foreclosed and the assessee will have right to urge all contentions. It is not disputed that the revenue did not file appeal against the order of the Tribunal setting aside the order of penalty. The order of the Tribunal allowing the appeal and deleting penalty under Section 271(1)(c) has become final. The assessing officer did not have any jurisdiction to again commence the penalty proceedings on the basis of same additional income for which penalty proceedings were already set aside. The Commissioner appeals has also discussed the said aspect so also the Tribunal. Though the Commissioner Appeals also considered the merits of the matter in our opinion it was not necessary to do so. Their observation and finding that the Assessing Officer could not have revisited the order of the penalty and should not have commenced the penalty proceedings a fresh, is in consonance with the proprietary and judicial discipline.

Summary

Issues:
1. Deletion of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) by Commissioner Appeals and Tribunal.
2. Validity of assessing officer's imposition of penalty after Tribunal's deletion.
3. Jurisdiction of assessing officer to reopen penalty proceedings.
4. Finality of Tribunal's order deleting penalty.
5. Propriety and judicial discipline in penalty proceedings.

Analysis:
1. The High Court addressed the issue of the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer under Section 271(1)(c) being deleted by the Commissioner Appeals and subsequently confirmed by the Tribunal. The appellant contended that the Tribunal's approach was erroneous as the assessing officer had considered all relevant aspects leading to the penalty imposition, which the Tribunal failed to acknowledge. The appellant argued that the order deleting the penalty was perverse.

2. The Court noted that in a previous round, the Tribunal had set aside the penalty and allowed the quantum appeal filed by the assessee. The revenue had appealed to the Court against the quantum proceedings, which was allowed. However, no appeal was filed against the Tribunal's order deleting the penalty. The Court emphasized that the assessing officer did not have the jurisdiction to initiate penalty proceedings again based on the same additional income for which the penalty was previously set aside.

3. The Court highlighted the finality of the Tribunal's order deleting the penalty under Section 271(1)(c), emphasizing that the assessing officer's attempt to revisit the penalty order was beyond their jurisdiction. The Commissioner Appeals and the Tribunal had also discussed this aspect, with the Court noting that it was unnecessary for them to delve into the merits of the matter. The Court upheld the propriety and judicial discipline by dismissing the Income Tax appeal, stating that no substantial question of law was raised.

4. In conclusion, the High Court's judgment affirmed the finality of the Tribunal's decision to delete the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) and emphasized the importance of adhering to proper legal procedures and judicial discipline in penalty proceedings. The Court's detailed analysis provided clarity on the jurisdictional limits of the assessing officer and the significance of upholding the Tribunal's decisions in such matters.