2009 (7) TMI 734 - HC - Income Tax

Penalty - Concealment of income - The Tribunal remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration as the Assessing Officer had initiated penalty proceedings without recording satisfaction regarding concealment of particulars of income and imposed penalty merely because the assessee had accepted the anomalies in its balance sheet, and had paid the additional tax that was demanded. On appeal the assessee contended that the Tribunal being satisfied that the order imposing penalty was not justified ought not to have remanded the matter for fresh consideration. Held that - adequate material were not available for a conclusive determination of the issue. Therefore, the question of imposition of penalty was open and the issue needed determination afresh. Therefore, the matter was remanded by the Tribunal to the primary authority, before whom the assessee would full opportunity to justify its stand that in the facts of the case, no penalty required to be imposed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Justification of remand of the matter to the Assessing Officer by the Tribunal.

Analysis:
1. The judgment deals with an appeal against the imposition of a penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The appellant contested the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer due to discrepancies in the balance-sheet regarding sundry creditors. The Assessing Officer treated the difference in amounts as undisclosed income, leading to penalty proceedings. During the penalty proceedings, the appellant argued that the mistake was made by the firm's accountant, and there was a lack of opportunity before the penalty imposition. The Tribunal held that the penalty was not justified as there was no finding of concealment of income by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration, which the appellant challenged, stating that the penalty should have been set aside without remand.

2. The second issue pertains to the justification of the Tribunal's decision to remand the matter to the Assessing Officer. The appellant argued against the remand, stating that if the Tribunal found the penalty imposition unjustified, it should have set it aside without requiring a fresh consideration. However, the Department contended that the Tribunal had the discretion to remand the matter under rule 28 of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963. The High Court analyzed the power of remand vested in an appellate forum, stating that it should be exercised when additional materials are necessary for a conclusive determination. As the relevant facts and materials were not adequately presented during the penalty proceedings, the Tribunal's decision to remand for a fresh consideration was deemed appropriate. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that there was no error justifying interference.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the appeal against the penalty imposition under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and upheld the Tribunal's decision to remand the matter to the Assessing Officer for a fresh consideration. The Court found that the power of remand was correctly exercised by the Tribunal due to the lack of conclusive materials during the penalty proceedings, thus affirming the Tribunal's decision without finding any substantial question of law warranting interference under section 260A of the Income-tax Act.