2020 (2) TMI 882 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Addition of unexplained deposits and interest thereon - HELD THAT - As decided in own case 2019 (10) TMI 1026 - ITAT PUNE we find that the Tribunal deleted the additions on merits. Therefore, it is reasonable be infer that the Tribunal granted relief to the assessee on merits in quantum appeal. As such, there is no dispute on the issue of deletion of the said addition, which is the subject matter of the penalty. Accordingly, the impugned penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act shall not survive. - Appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Confirmation of penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act.
2. Jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to impose penalty on enhanced income.
3. Lack of clear finding by the Assessing Officer on whether the penalty was for "furnishing inaccurate particulars of income" or "concealment of income."

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Confirmation of penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act:
The assessee challenged the penalty of ?10,12,126/- imposed under Section 271(1)(c) for alleged income addition of ?32,13,100/-. The assessee argued that the penalty was imposed without establishing any facts or corroborative evidence. The Assessing Officer had assessed the total income at ?21,86,950/- against the returned income of ?3,34,950/- due to unexplained deposits and interest. The CIT(A) upheld the penalty and enhanced the unexplained investments to ?23,13,100/- with additional interest, totaling ?32,13,100/-. The Tribunal noted that the Pune Bench had previously granted relief to the assessee in the quantum appeal, deleting the addition. Consequently, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) did not survive as the quantum addition was deleted.

2. Jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to impose penalty on enhanced income:
The assessee contended that the Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction to impose a penalty on the enhanced income of ?32,13,100/-. The CIT(A) had directed the Assessing Officer to initiate penalty proceedings for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income related to the enhanced income. The Tribunal found that since the quantum addition was deleted by the Pune Bench in the assessee's own case, the penalty imposed on the enhanced income was not sustainable.

3. Lack of clear finding by the Assessing Officer on whether the penalty was for "furnishing inaccurate particulars of income" or "concealment of income":
The assessee argued that the Assessing Officer did not provide a clear finding on whether the penalty was for "furnishing inaccurate particulars of income" or "concealment of income." The Tribunal noted that the penalty does not survive when the quantum addition is deleted. Therefore, the lack of clear finding by the Assessing Officer rendered the penalty unsustainable.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) could not be sustained as the quantum addition was deleted by the Pune Bench in the assessee's own case. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and allowed the grounds raised by the assessee, thereby deleting the penalty imposed. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.