2015 (11) TMI 1385 - AT - Income Tax

Appeal Granted: Penalty Quashed under Income Tax Act

Applitech Solution Ltd. Versus ACIT (OSD), Range-1 Ahmedabad.

Applitech Solution Ltd. Versus ACIT (OSD), Range-1 Ahmedabad. - TMI Issues:Challenge to penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.Analysis:The appellant contested the penalty of Rs. 3,23,11,350 imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in relation to the assessment for the Asstt.Year 2003-04. The Assessing Officer (AO) had made significant additions to the income of the appellant, leading to the imposition of the penalty. The appellant's appeal to the CIT(A) did not result in relief. However, the Tribunal, in a previous order, set aside the additions made in the assessment year 2000-01, which formed the basis of the penalty. The Tribunal found that the appellant was prevented from filing an appeal due to liquidation proceedings, and hence, condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal also highlighted that the appellant did not have a fair opportunity to present its case before the authorities. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, indicating that the penalty was not sustainable based on the circumstances.The Tribunal emphasized that section 271(1)(c) of the Act imposes penalties for concealing income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. It noted that penalties are calculated based on the tax sought to be evaded due to the additions made to the income of the assessee. However, since the assessment order was set aside by the ITAT, the additions leading to the penalty were extinguished. As a result, the Tribunal ruled that the penalty could not be sustained as the question of whether any addition should be made to the income was yet to be decided. The Tribunal quashed the imposition of the penalty and left it to the AO's discretion to decide on initiating penalty proceedings after passing a fresh assessment order following the Tribunal's directive.In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appellant's appeal, highlighting that the penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not sustainable in the given circumstances. The Tribunal's decision was based on the fact that the additions leading to the penalty were set aside, and the AO would need to reassess the situation before considering any penalties. The Tribunal's thorough analysis and consideration of the legal provisions resulted in the decision to quash the penalty, providing relief to the appellant in this case.