2019 (7) TMI 592 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - disallowance of the claim of bad debts - HELD THAT - As in quantum appeal on assessee's own case 2018 (7) TMI 2009 - ITAT MUMBAI for the A.Y. 2003-04 in which the claim of bad debts has been allowed. Since the claim of the assessee in connection with bad debts has been allowed and the very base to levy the penalty is not in existence, therefore, no penalty is liable to be sustainable in the eyes of law. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Ex-parte order framed by CIT(A)
2. Confirmation of penalty under section 271(1)(c) by CIT(A)
3. Levying penalty based on income, including surcharge
4. Validity of penalty order

Issue 1: Ex-parte order framed by CIT(A)
The assessee contended that the CIT(A) erred in framing an ex-parte order, as the order was passed before the date of the hearing given by the CIT(A). The argument was that the order was framed in confusion. The assessee raised objections to the ex-parte order, stating that it should not have been passed in such circumstances. The grounds of appeal highlighted the procedural error in the order passed by the CIT(A).

Issue 2: Confirmation of penalty under section 271(1)(c) by CIT(A)
The CIT(A) upheld the action of the Assessing Officer in confirming the levy of a penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The appellants argued that the penalty order was bad in law as the Assessing Officer did not issue a proper notice under section 274 r.w.s. 271, which is a requirement for levying such a penalty. The appellants contended that the penalty order should be quashed due to this procedural error.

Issue 3: Levying penalty based on income, including surcharge
The appellants further contended that the CIT(A) erred in upholding the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer based on income, including surcharge. This issue raised concerns about the calculation and basis of the penalty imposed on the assessee.

Issue 4: Validity of penalty order
The penalty proceeding was initiated based on the disallowance of a claim of bad debts, leading to the levy of a penalty. However, the Hon'ble ITAT in a previous case allowed the claim of bad debts, which formed the basis of the penalty. The ITAT found that since the claim of bad debts had been allowed, the very basis for levying the penalty was no longer valid. Consequently, the penalty was deleted, and the appeal was decided in favor of the assessee against the revenue.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed various issues related to procedural errors in the penalty order, the validity of the penalty based on the allowed claim of bad debts, and the calculation of the penalty based on income. The decision ultimately favored the assessee, leading to the deletion of the penalty and allowing the appeal.