2019 (2) TMI 1326 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - HELD THAT - Assessee has taken a legal ground before the CIT(A) challenging the levy of penalty in this case u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. CIT(A) has not adjudicated the legal ground taken before him. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice deem it proper to restore this matter back to the file of the CIT(A) with direction to adjudicate the same. Needless to say the CIT(A) shall grant due opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide the issue as per fact and law.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to the exparte order of the CIT(A) in upholding the orders of the Assessing Officer.
2. Challenge to the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act.

Issue 1 - Challenge to the exparte order of the CIT(A):
In the case, two appeals were filed by the assessee against orders dated 18.02.2014 and 28.02.2018 of the CIT(A) relating to A. Y. 2008-09. The assessee challenged the exparte order of the CIT(A) in upholding the orders of the Assessing Officer. The first appeal, ITA No.1717/Del/2015, was dismissed as "withdrawn" as the assessee expressed a desire to withdraw the appeal. The second appeal, ITA No.3883/Del/2015, involved a challenge to the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act.

Issue 2 - Challenge to the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act:
In the second appeal, the assessee contested the penalty of ?4,72,770/- imposed by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. The counsel for the assessee highlighted a legal ground challenging the penalty, emphasizing that the penalty order was based on alleged concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The counsel argued that only one option should be chosen between the two, and the penalty order was legally flawed. The CIT(A) had not addressed this legal ground, leading the counsel to request restoration of the matter to the CIT(A) for adjudication.

The Tribunal, after considering both sides, found that the legal ground challenging the penalty had not been addressed by the CIT(A). In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to restore the matter to the file of the CIT(A) with directions to adjudicate the issue. The Tribunal emphasized that the CIT(A) should provide the assessee with a fair opportunity to present their case and decide the matter in accordance with facts and law. The appeal of the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes.

In conclusion, the judgment involved the withdrawal of one appeal by the assessee, and the restoration of the second appeal challenging the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act back to the CIT(A) for proper adjudication. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of addressing legal grounds raised by the parties and ensuring a fair opportunity for the assessee to present their case.