9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (5) TMI 327 - AT - Income TaxPenalty u/s 271(1)(c) - CIT(A) cancelled the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer in the second revised penalty order on the basis of technical issue of not obtaining prior approval from JCIT - HELD THAT - CIT(A) has cancelled the second revised order on procedural aspect of not obtaining prior approval from JCIT. In our considered view, it is rectifiable mistake therefore we remit the second revised penalty order back to the file of the AO to obtain proper approval and pass the order. Accordingly, the Ground Nos. 2 and 3 raised by the revenue are allowed for statistical purpose. Whether CIT(A) has erred in directing the Assessing Officer to recompute the quantum of penalty only to the extent of the addition confirmed by the ITAT without appreciating the fact that the revenue is not accepted the order of the ITAT and same is challenged before Hon'ble High Court which is still pending? - In our considered view once the quantum appeal is decided by the ITAT the same is applicable on both Ld.CIT(A) as well as Assessing Officer, therefore the order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) is binding on the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the ground raised by the revenue is accordingly dismissed.
Issues:
Cross appeals against common order of CIT(A) for A.Ys. 2010-11, 2011-12, and 2012-13; Technical grounds for penalty imposition; Validity of penalty orders; Directions for penalty re-computation; Approval from JCIT for penalty orders; Merger concept in revised orders. Analysis: 1. The appeals were filed against the common order of the CIT(A) for multiple assessment years, clubbed for convenience. The Assessee, a partnership firm in real estate, faced penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 after a search and seizure action. The Assessing Officer imposed a penalty, which was partially set aside by the ITAT, leading to revised penalty orders. 2. The CIT(A) adjudicated on the revised penalty orders for A.Y. 2010-11, directing the Assessing Officer to recompute the penalty only to the extent of additions confirmed by the ITAT. The Revenue and the Assessee raised separate grounds in their appeals, challenging the directions and validity of penalty orders based on technical and procedural aspects. 3. The Revenue contended that the CIT(A) erred in directing the penalty re-computation without appreciating the pending challenge before the High Court. However, the Tribunal held that the ITAT's decision is binding on both the CIT(A) and the Assessing Officer, dismissing the Revenue's ground. 4. The Assessee raised objections regarding the validity of the penalty order dated 27/03/2018, superseded by the order dated 25/09/2018. The Tribunal agreed that the revised order supersedes the earlier one, allowing the Assessee's grounds. 5. Considering the technical and procedural issues, the Tribunal remitted the second revised penalty order back to the Assessing Officer for rectification, as it was deemed a rectifiable mistake. The Tribunal also allowed certain grounds for both the Revenue and the Assessee for statistical purposes. 6. The Tribunal's decision for A.Y. 2010-11 was extended to A.Ys. 2011-12 and 2012-13 due to similar facts. The appeals were partly allowed for statistical purposes, emphasizing the importance of proper approval and procedural correctness in penalty imposition.
|
