2019 (4) TMI 628 - HC - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - quantum addition proceedings remitted back - HELD THAT - No substantial question of law arises in the present case for consideration by this Court under Section 260A of the Act since the matter has been remitted to the Assessing Officer for re-consideration on the issue of additions made by the Assessing Authority and the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is a consequential issue it can be considered after a decision is arrived on the issue of additions, the present Appeal is premature one and the Assessee is free to move the Assessing Authority in pursuance of the direction of the Tribunal. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that no substantial question of law requires our consideration. - Decided against assessee

Summary

Issues:
- Remitting penalty case back to Assessing Officer
- Connection between penalty case and quantum appeal
- Disallowance of depreciation on intangible assets

Issue 1: Remitting penalty case back to Assessing Officer

The High Court considered the appeal filed by the Assessee under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal had remitted the matter back to the Assessing Authority concerning certain additions, including the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Tribunal vacated the penalty order, stating that the issue of penalty should be decided after giving effect to the Tribunal's order on the quantum additions. The Assessee argued that since the issue of depreciation of intangible assets was withdrawn before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), it was not pending before the Tribunal. The Court noted that the matter had been remitted to the Assessing Officer for re-consideration of the additions made, and the penalty was a consequential issue to be addressed later. Therefore, the Court found that the appeal was premature, and no substantial question of law required consideration at that stage. The Court concluded that the appeal was devoid of merits and dismissed it.

Issue 2: Connection between penalty case and quantum appeal

The Tribunal's order highlighted that the Assessee had filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on certain additions but withdrew the appeal related to the disallowance of depreciation on intangible assets. The Assessing Officer had levied a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act based on various disallowances made during assessment. The Tribunal opined that deciding the penalty issue at that stage was premature, as some matters were remitted for fresh consideration. The Tribunal allowed the Revenue's appeals partly for statistical purposes and dismissed one appeal. The High Court concurred with the Tribunal's view that the penalty proceedings should be initiated after addressing the quantum additions, and the appeal was dismissed as infructuous.

Issue 3: Disallowance of depreciation on intangible assets

The Assessee had structured transactions related to intangible assets, leading to a wrong claim of depreciation to reduce tax liability. The Assessing Officer made various disallowances during assessment, including disallowance of depreciation on intangible assets. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleted the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, which was challenged by the Revenue. The Tribunal observed that the penalty issue should not be decided prematurely, especially when certain matters were remitted for fresh consideration. The connection between the disallowance of depreciation on intangible assets and the penalty appeal was discussed, emphasizing that the penalty proceedings should follow a decision on the quantum additions.

This detailed analysis of the judgment provides a comprehensive understanding of the issues involved and the court's reasoning in addressing each aspect of the case.