2019 (4) TMI 611 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal overturns penalty under Income Tax Act, grants Assessee fair opportunity for fresh assessment.

The Tribunal allowed the Assessee's appeal, setting aside the penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment ... Levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - quantum addition proceeding remanded back - HELD THAT:- The tribunal has set aside the quantum proceedings back to the file of the first appellate authority. The appeal in the instant case is qua penalty on both the additions under appeal in the quantum proceedings. Per contra, the penalty proceedings would necessarily have to be restored back. The same are, accordingly, set aside to the file of the ld. CIT(A), to decide the same in light of and by taking into consideration the explanations furnished; the material/s brought on record, as well as the finding/s issued by the first appellate authority in the quantum proceedings, of course after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to both the parties before him. - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes. Issues:1. Appeal against the Order confirming penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. Jurisdictional discrepancy between the Tribunal's Chandigarh Bench and Amritsar Bench.3. Setting aside of quantum proceedings and its impact on penalty proceedings.Analysis:1. The appeal was filed by the Assessee challenging the Order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirming the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2009-10. The Tribunal considered the submission made by the Assessee's counsel, which highlighted that since the assessment had been set aside by the Tribunal in quantum proceedings, the penalty proceedings should also be set aside. The Departmental Representative did not object to this argument. Consequently, the Tribunal decided to set aside the penalty proceedings to the file of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for reconsideration.2. A jurisdictional discrepancy was raised regarding the presentation of the appeal before the Amritsar Bench of the Tribunal despite the quantum proceedings being under the Chandigarh Bench. The Assessee's counsel clarified that this was due to a change in the Assessee's jurisdiction following an order transferring it from one ward to another. The Tribunal accepted this explanation, emphasizing that no jurisdictional issue arose from this procedural change.3. The Tribunal, after hearing both parties and examining the record, concluded that since the quantum proceedings had been sent back to the first appellate authority, the penalty proceedings should also be restored accordingly. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the penalty proceedings for the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to review and decide considering the explanations provided, evidence on record, and the findings from the quantum proceedings. The parties were to be given a fair opportunity to present their case before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for a fresh determination.In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the Assessee's appeal for statistical purposes, and the decision was pronounced in an open court on March 29, 2019.