9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (4) TMI 799 - AT - Income TaxLevy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) - addition u/s.68 on Unexplained cash deposits in the Savings Bank A/c maintained with India Bank - assessee as stated primary defect in the notice i.e. the jurisdictional issue that the AO while initiating penalty proceedings has not scored-off under which limb the penalty is levied - even the Ld.CIT(A) in the first round has categorically quashed the penalty order as relying on SHRI SAMSON PERINCHERY 2017 (1) TMI 1292 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT - HELD THAT - Where defective notices, were neither of limb is scored off, the notice is treated as defective. We noted that when the very defect is quashed by the Ld.CIT(A) in the first round, nothing survives for penalty on the remainder amount. When this was pointed out to the ld.Sr.DR, he could not controvert the above stated facet situation. As the issue is clear in the first round of appeal that the Ld.CIT(A) has deleted the penalty and Revenue is not in appeal against the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and hence, that has become final. However, the penalty levied in the second round will not survive, because the very case is jurisdictional issue goes to the root of the matter, once root is taken out, nothing survives. Hence, we deleted the penalty and allow the appeal filed by the assessee.
Issues:
Levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 based on additions made by the Assessing Officer. Detailed Analysis: 1. The appeal arose from the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirming the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer had made additions under sections 68 and 69B of the Act, totaling to significant amounts. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld the additions partially, leading to penalty proceedings being initiated by the Assessing Officer. 2. The Tribunal, in an earlier order, restricted the addition under section 68 to a lower amount than initially determined by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal also upheld a portion of the addition made under section 69B. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer initiated fresh penalty proceedings based on the revised additions upheld by the Tribunal. 3. The appellant contended that the penalty notice was defective as it did not specify under which limb the penalty was being levied, citing jurisdictional issues. The appellant relied on judicial precedents to support the argument that defective notices render penalties invalid. The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had already deleted the penalty in the first round of appeal, which was not challenged by the Revenue, making it final. 4. Referring to a case law where penalties were deleted due to defective notices, the Tribunal held that once the root jurisdictional issue was addressed and the penalty deleted in the first round of appeal, subsequent penalties based on the same additions could not be sustained. Therefore, the Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the assessee and deleted the penalty imposed in the second round of proceedings. 5. The Tribunal's decision was based on the principle that once a penalty is deleted due to jurisdictional defects in the notice, subsequent penalties on the same grounds cannot stand. The Tribunal's ruling aligned with established legal interpretations and previous judicial decisions, ultimately leading to the allowance of the assessee's appeal and the deletion of the penalty imposed in the second round of proceedings. This detailed analysis encapsulates the key legal issues, arguments presented, judicial precedents cited, and the ultimate decision rendered by the Tribunal in the case.
|
