2022 (6) TMI 508 - AT - Income Tax

Levy of penalty on additions of admitted amount during assessment proceedings - CIT(A) deleted the penalty - Company has already liquidated - Penalty in respect of Redemption premium received by the assessee company, which was disclosed assessee company during the scrutiny proceedings after the issue of notice u/s 143(2) - HELD THAT - When the respondent company has already gone into liquidation vide order dated (supra) and is no more in existence the present appeal filed by the Revenue is not maintainable in the present format as liquidator has not come up before the Tribunal despite numerous notices to file the amended form 36A in the present appeal. So in these circumstances present appeal is not maintainable in the present format.

Summary

Issues:
1. Penalty deletion for redemption premium disclosure post scrutiny proceedings.
2. Maintainability of the appeal in the absence of the respondent company.

Issue 1: Penalty Deletion for Redemption Premium Disclosure Post Scrutiny Proceedings:
The Appellant, DCIT 3(1)(2), Mumbai, filed an appeal seeking to set aside the order passed by the CIT(IT) regarding the penalty deletion for redemption premium of Rs.5,30,21,996/- disclosed by the assessee company during scrutiny proceedings post notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The AO imposed a penalty of Rs.91,19,56,419/- under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, alleging deliberate income concealment by furnishing inaccurate particulars. The CIT(A) deleted the penalty, leading the Revenue to appeal before the Tribunal. Despite the notice, the assessee did not appear, and the Tribunal decided the appeal based on available records and the Revenue's submissions.

Issue 2: Maintainability of the Appeal in the Absence of the Respondent Company:
The respondent company was liquidated by the NCALT, as confirmed by Vaish Associates Advocates, the attorney of the company. Given the company's non-existence, the Tribunal found the appeal filed by the Revenue not maintainable in its current form. Despite multiple notices, the liquidator did not file the amended form 36A. Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the appeal not maintainable at that stage, allowing the Revenue to file a fresh appeal in the proper format or restore the present appeal by submitting an application duly verified by the authorized person to file the return of income.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal on the grounds of non-maintainability due to the liquidation of the respondent company and provided the Revenue with the option to file a fresh appeal in the correct format or seek restoration of the current appeal through proper procedures.