2017 (12) TMI 645 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) - quantum addition restored back - Held that - Since the issue in quantum has been restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, the penalty is also restored accordingly. Our view in restoring the penalty to the A.O is fortified by the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Mohatram Farooqui vs. CIT (2010 (2) TMI 1122 - SUPREME COURT) in which it has been held that if addition is restored to the A.O, then penalty should also be restored. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Penalty under section 271(1)(c) for concealment of income and filing inaccurate particulars of income.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the penalty of &8377; 1,50,000 imposed on the assessee for Assessment Year 2007-08. The assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on account of a bogus cash loan. The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal, leading to further appeal before the ITAT. The ITAT remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication based on the assessee's own case for the quantum appeal. The Ld. AR argued that since the issue in quantum has been restored to the Assessing Officer, the penalty should not survive, a point not contested by the Ld. DR.

The tribunal considered the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Mohatram Farooqui vs. CIT(SC) 2010-TIOL-23-SC-IT, which held that if an addition is restored to the Assessing Officer, the penalty should also be restored. Additionally, the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in Sanjay Gupta Vs. CIT (2014) 366 ITR 18 (Del) stated that when the quantum is remanded to the Assessing Officer, the question of penalty should also be remanded. Therefore, the tribunal set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter to the Assessing Officer for determining the imposition of the penalty after the fresh assessment order on this count. Consequently, the appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the penalty was remitted back for fresh adjudication.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the legal proceedings involved in the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) for concealment of income and filing inaccurate particulars of income. The tribunal's decision to remit the penalty matter back to the Assessing Officer based on legal precedents ensures a fair and just determination in line with the principles established by higher courts.