Tribunal upholds CIT(A)'s decision to delete penalty under Income Tax Act citing valid reasons for delay.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal and upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the penalty imposed under Section 140A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal found that the assessee had a valid reason for the delay in tax payment due to liquidity issues. It concluded that the penalty order was not sustainable as the AO misunderstood the relevant provisions of the Act and did not follow the correct procedure.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Correctness of the CIT(A)'s order in law and facts.
2. Deletion of penalty under Section 140A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Issue-wise Analysis:

1. Correctness of the CIT(A)'s Order in Law and Facts:
The Revenue challenged the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the penalty imposed under Section 140A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The CIT(A) had set aside the penalty order dated 31.05.2012 for the assessment year 2009-10. The Revenue argued that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty of Rs. 4,12,62,460/- for non-payment of self-assessment tax shown as payable in the return of income.

2. Deletion of Penalty under Section 140A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961:
The assessee filed a return of income for the assessment year 2009-10 on 03.09.2010, declaring an income of Rs. 9,39,00,720/- without paying the self-assessment tax of Rs. 4,12,62,460/-. The AO issued a show-cause notice under Section 140A(3) on 23.11.2011, asking why the assessee should not be treated as in default and why a penalty should not be imposed. The AO subsequently imposed a penalty of Rs. 4,12,62,460/-.

The CIT(A) rejected the legal objection that the penalty was imposed under Section 140A(3) instead of Section 221, citing Section 292B, which covers inadvertent mistakes in quoting the correct section. However, the CIT(A) allowed the appeal on merits, accepting the assessee's explanations regarding liquidity issues and the timing of the tax payments.

The Departmental Representative (DR) argued that no supporting documents for liquidity issues were provided to the AO and that the bank accounts were attached in March 2011 due to non-payment of demand. The DR emphasized that the undisclosed income was admitted voluntarily by the assessee and that the payment of tax cannot be delayed. The DR relied on several judgments to support the penalty.

The assessee's counsel argued that Section 140A does not provide for penalty imposition and that the AO's penalty order was not sustainable. The counsel highlighted that the assessee faced a liquidity crunch and had paid the entire tax liability before the penalty order was passed. The counsel also cited several judgments supporting their position.

The Tribunal noted that the judgments relied upon by the AO were related to assessment years prior to 1989-90, and the provisions of Section 140A had been amended several times since then. The Tribunal observed that the AO had not issued a defect notice under Explanation (aa) of Section 139(9) and that the assessee had paid the entire tax liability before the penalty order. The Tribunal also noted the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi's order dated 12.08.2013, which accepted the assessee's argument of liquidity issues.

The Tribunal concluded that the AO misunderstood the relevant provisions of the Act and that the penalty order was not sustainable. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no infirmity or perversity in it.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s order to delete the penalty imposed under Section 140A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that the assessee faced a liquidity crunch and had a good and sufficient cause for the delay in tax payment. The Tribunal found that the AO had not followed the correct procedure and that the penalty order was not in accordance with the law.

---