2021 (9) TMI 912 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - HELD THAT - We are of the view that penalty U/s 271(1)(c) of I.T Act levied by AO has no legs to stand at present, when the corresponding additions made by the AO have already been deleted by ITAT vide its aforesaid order 2021 (1) TMI 670 - ITAT DELHI when the aforesaid quantum addition does not survive, the penalty levied U/s 271(1)(C) of I.T. Act on the corresponding quantum addition also cannot survive. We take support from judicial precedent in the case of K.C. Builders vs. ACIT 2004 (1) TMI 7 - SUPREME COURT in which the Hon ble Apex Court held that where the additions made in the Assessment Order, on the basis of which penalty for concealment was levied, are deleted, by ITAT or otherwise, the penalty cannot stand by itself and is liable to be cancelled. In such a situation, there is no basis at all at present for sustaining the penalty U/s 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act , and therefore, in such a case, such penalty cannot survive presently. In view of the foregoing, the penalty levied U/s 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act is hereby cancelled. Accordingly, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Upholding of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act without proper initiation and show cause notice.
2. Dismissal of appeal without adjudicating grounds of appeal on merit.
3. Imposition of penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income without providing necessary documents or explanations.
4. Levying penalty without supplying a copy of a third party statement or allowing cross-examination.
5. Request for permission to file additional grounds of appeal and case laws.

Issue 1:
The appeal challenged the upholding of the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act without proper initiation and show cause notice. The Assessee argued that the penalty was imposed without legal initiation in the Assessment Order or the show cause notice under section 274 of the Act. The Assessee contended that natural justice was violated as no specific charge was mentioned. The Appellate Tribunal found that the penalty could not stand as the corresponding additions made by the Assessing Officer had already been deleted by ITAT. Citing the case of K.C. Builders vs. ACIT, the Tribunal held that when additions forming the basis of penalty are deleted, the penalty cannot be sustained. Therefore, the penalty under section 271(1)(c) was cancelled.

Issue 2:
The appeal also raised concerns about the dismissal of the appeal without adjudicating grounds of appeal on merit. The Assessee argued that the order under section 271(1)(c) was passed arbitrarily and in violation of natural justice. However, the Appellate Tribunal, after considering the deletion of the corresponding quantum addition by ITAT, concluded that there was no basis for sustaining the penalty. Therefore, the appeal was allowed, and the penalty under section 271(1)(c) was cancelled.

Issue 3:
Regarding the imposition of penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income without providing necessary documents or explanations, the Assessee contended that no inaccurate documents were submitted. The Appellate Tribunal, after noting the deletion of the quantum addition by ITAT, found that the penalty could not survive in the absence of the underlying addition. Consequently, the penalty under section 271(1)(c) was cancelled.

Issue 4:
The Assessee also challenged the imposition of a penalty without supplying a copy of a third party statement or allowing cross-examination. The Appellate Tribunal, considering the deletion of the quantum addition by ITAT, held that the penalty could not be sustained. Referring to legal precedent, the Tribunal cancelled the penalty under section 271(1)(c) in light of the deletion of the corresponding addition.

Issue 5:
The Assessee sought permission to file additional grounds of appeal and case laws. However, the Appellate Tribunal, after considering the deletion of the quantum addition by ITAT, found no basis for sustaining the penalty under section 271(1)(c). Therefore, the penalty was cancelled, and the appeal was allowed.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the issues raised by the Assessee, the arguments presented, and the Appellate Tribunal's reasoning leading to the cancellation of the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act.