2014 (9) TMI 94 - HC - Income Tax

High Court quashes judgments, remands to Tribunal for fresh consideration.

Commissioner of Income Tax Versus Pravinchandra F. Parekh -Huf

The High Court allowed both appeals, quashed the impugned judgments, and remanded the matters to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for fresh consideration ... Cancellation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) – Quantum appeal kept alive by Tribunal - Whether the Tribunal is justified in cancelling the penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act inspite of the fact that the quantum appeal is kept alive by the same ITAT Bench – Held that:- Following the decision in Commissioner of Income Tax Versus Pravinchandra C. Parekh [2014 (3) TMI 186 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT ] - Tribunal while disposing of the appeal upholding the deletion of penalty imposed by the CIT(A) has solely relied upon the order passed by the CIT(A) on quantum of appeal and it was challenged before the Tribunal and the order was set aside and further direction was issued, the order passed by the Tribunal also deserves to be quashed and set aside and the matters are required to be remanded to the Tribunal to decide the appeal afresh – Decided in favour of Revenue. Issues Involved:1. Appeal against the impugned judgment and order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for different assessment years.2. Challenge to the cancellation of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act.3. Comparison with a previous Division Bench judgment in a similar case.Analysis:Issue 1: Appeal against the impugned judgment and orderThe High Court considered two appeals by the Revenue against the judgments of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITA) for different assessment years. The appeals were disposed of together due to common questions of law and facts arising for the same assessee but different assessment years.Issue 2: Challenge to the cancellation of penaltyThe main issue raised in the appeals was the cancellation of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act by the ITA. The Court scrutinized whether the ITAT was justified in canceling the penalty despite the quantum appeal being kept alive by the same bench. The Court noted that a similar order in a previous case had been challenged, and the Division Bench had remanded the matter for fresh consideration. The Court, therefore, decided to quash the impugned orders and remand the matters to the ITAT for a fresh decision in accordance with the law and on merits.Issue 3: Comparison with previous Division Bench judgmentThe Court referred to a previous Division Bench judgment in a similar case where the penalty deletion was challenged. In that case, the Division Bench had remanded the matter for fresh consideration. The Court in the present case found similarities and decided to follow the same approach, quashing the impugned orders and remanding the matters for fresh consideration by the ITAT.In conclusion, the High Court allowed both appeals, quashed the impugned judgments, and remanded the matters to the ITAT for fresh consideration in accordance with the law and on merits after hearing both sides. No costs were awarded in these appeals.