2020 (10) TMI 1017 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - additions u/s 68 - HELD THAT - Since the additions on the basis of which the impugned penalty was sustained by the Ld.CIT(A) have already been deleted by the Ld. CIT(A) / ITAT, as such the said additions which were the basis for levying the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act are not in existence, therefore, by respectfully following the ratio laid down in case of the K.C. Builders and Another Vs. Asst. CIT 2004 (1) TMI 7 - SUPREME COURT impugned penalty sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) is deleted.

Summary

Issues:
1. Sustenance of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act.
2. Validity of penalty levied for concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.
3. Consideration of additions made under section 68 and in the Saving Bank account.
4. Deletion of penalty by the Ld. CIT(A) on certain additions but sustenance on others.
5. Impact of deletion of additions on the penalty imposed.

Issue 1: Sustenance of Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act:
The appeal by the assessee was against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-1, Ludhiana, regarding the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer (A.O.) under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The primary grievance of the Assessee related to the sustenance of this penalty.

Issue 2: Validity of Penalty for Concealment of Income and Furnishing Inaccurate Particulars:
The grounds raised in the appeal questioned the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision to uphold the penalty for concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The appellant argued that the penalty notice lacked specificity and failed to establish whether the additions to the capital accounts represented concealed income or inaccurate particulars of income.

Issue 3: Consideration of Additions Made under Section 68 and in the Saving Bank Account:
The A.O. had made additions under section 68 and in the Saving Bank account, leading to the initiation of penalties under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) sustained the penalty on these specific additions, despite deleting penalties on other grounds.

Issue 4: Deletion of Penalty on Certain Additions but Sustenance on Others:
The Ld. CIT(A) deleted penalties related to trading additions and other general nature additions but upheld penalties on specific amounts added under section 68 and in the Saving Bank account. The appellant contested the sustainability of these penalties.

Issue 5: Impact of Deletion of Additions on the Penalty Imposed:
The appellant presented evidence that the additions forming the basis of the penalties had been deleted in quantum appeals before the Ld. CIT(A) and ITAT. Citing legal precedent, the Tribunal ruled that if the additions forming the basis for the penalty were deleted, the penalty itself could not stand. Consequently, the impugned penalty was deleted, and the appeal of the Assessee was allowed.

This detailed analysis of the judgment provides insights into the issues raised, the arguments presented, and the ultimate decision reached by the Tribunal in the context of the penalty imposed under the Income Tax Act.