2019 (4) TMI 703 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - disallowance u/s 14A - quantum proceedings remanded back - HELD THAT - Without entering into merits of this case the penalty proceedings are not sustainable, hence deleted, as the quantum proceedings have already been remanded back to the AO to decide afresh. So, AO is at liberty to initiate the penalty proceedings, if any, after passing fresh assessment order. Consequently appeal filed by the revenue as well as Cross Objection filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal by the Revenue against deletion of penalty under section 271(1)(c) for wrong claim of deduction.
2. Cross objections by the Assessee challenging the legality of penalty imposition under section 271(1)(c).

Analysis:

Issue 1: Appeal by the Revenue
The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax filed an appeal seeking to set aside the order deleting the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) for an amount of ?1,46,566,380. The grounds included the contention that the Assessee made a wrong claim for deduction under the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer (AO) initiated penalty proceedings based on additions made during assessment, including disallowances of expenses and under section 14A of the Act. The penalty was imposed for concealing income particulars or furnishing inaccurate income particulars. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleted the penalty. The Tribunal noted that the issue related to disallowance under section 14A was remanded back to the AO for fresh assessment. Consequently, without delving into the merits, the Tribunal held the penalty proceedings as not sustainable and deleted the penalty, allowing the appeal filed by the Revenue.

Issue 2: Cross Objections by the Assessee
PTC India Ltd., the Assessee, filed Cross Objections challenging the legality of the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c). The objections included contentions that the penalty notice and order were illegal, lacked valid satisfaction before initiation, and were without jurisdiction. It was argued that the AO was uncertain about the concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The Assessee also raised concerns about the absence of specific charges for levying the penalty. The Tribunal, considering the remand of the issue related to disallowance under section 14A, deemed the penalty proceedings unsustainable and allowed the Cross Objections for statistical purposes.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision in this case revolved around the sustainability of penalty proceedings in light of the remand of certain issues for fresh assessment. The Tribunal refrained from delving into the merits of the penalty imposition and ruled in favor of deleting the penalty, allowing the appeal by the Revenue and the Cross Objections by the Assessee for statistical purposes.