9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (9) TMI 221 - AT - Income TaxPenalty u/s 271(1)(c) - assessee has claimed expenses during the Assessment Year 2005- 06 on account of fee paid to ROC, depreciation, Umaid Bhawan Palace Project cost written off and other expenses in Assessment Year 2005-06, and claim of depreciation and other expenses in Assessment Year 2006-07, which have been disallowed by the A.O. being not sustainable - Held that - Keeping in view the facts and circumstances explained it is of the considered view that against the quantum addition sustained up to the stage of ITAT, the assessee has filed appeal before Hon ble Delhi High Court we are not adjudicating the merits of the case as it will prejudice to the interest of revenue authorities. In the interest of justice, we set aside the impugned order passed by first appellate authority and restore the matter to the A.O. who will decide the same after decision of Hon ble High Court in the quantum appeal after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes.
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction and Limitation of Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Concealment of Income or Furnishing Inaccurate Particulars. 3. Nature of Disallowances and Bona Fide Differences of Opinion. 4. Impact of Pending Quantum Appeal before the High Court. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction and Limitation of Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961: The assessee argued that the penalty order dated 14.03.2012 was barred by limitation as prescribed under section 275 of the Act. The CIT(A) erred in not holding that the penalty imposed was without jurisdiction and barred by limitation. 2. Concealment of Income or Furnishing Inaccurate Particulars: The assessee contended that there was no concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. All material particulars were truly, fully, and accurately furnished. The CIT(A) upheld the penalty based on findings from the Tribunal in the quantum proceedings, which the assessee argued did not indicate any concealment or inaccurate particulars. 3. Nature of Disallowances and Bona Fide Differences of Opinion: The assessee claimed that the disallowances made were debatable and based on a bona fide difference of opinion. Specifically, the disallowances included fees paid to ROC, depreciation claims, Umaid Bhawan Palace Project costs, and other expenses. The CIT(A) upheld the penalty without appreciating that the expenses were revenue in nature and the disallowances were based on differences of opinion regarding the cessation or temporary lull in business. 4. Impact of Pending Quantum Appeal before the High Court: The assessee argued that the CIT(A) erred in upholding the penalty without waiting for the decision of the quantum appeal pending before the Delhi High Court. The Tribunal noted that the penalty issue was debatable and the quantum appeal was pending, making the penalty imposition premature. Tribunal's Decision: The Tribunal considered the facts and rival contentions, including the reliance on the Supreme Court judgment in CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd., which held that mere making of a claim not sustainable in law does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal also noted that the quantum appeal was pending before the High Court, making the penalty issue debatable. Conclusion: In the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order passed by the first appellate authority and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer. The AO was directed to decide the penalty issue after the decision of the High Court in the quantum appeal, ensuring adequate opportunity for the assessee to be heard. Order: The appeals filed by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes, and the order was pronounced in the open court on 26th August 2015.
|
