2020 (6) TMI 295 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal cancels penalty under Income Tax Act, sec 221(2) due to deletion of additions and absence of tax demand.

Sama Ramachandra Reddy Hyderabad Versus Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 2 Hyderabad

The Tribunal found the penalty under section 221(1) of the Income Tax Act unsustainable due to the deletion of additions and absence of outstanding tax ... Penalty u/s.221(1) - non-payment of admitted tax - HELD THAT:- Since the very addition has been deleted and there is no outstanding demand of tax, the penalty u/s.221 of the Act is not sustainable. Also find support from the decision of Heddle Knowledge (P) Ltd., Vs. ITO [2018 (3) TMI 208 - ITAT MUMBAI] wherein the Tribunal has considered the amended provisions of 140A(3) of the Act w.e.f. 01-04-1989 and held that it does not envisage any penalty for non-payment of self-assessment tax and therefore the AO was not justified in levying penalty by taking recourse to Section 221(1). In view of the provisions of Section 221(2) delete the penalty levied u/s.221(1). Accordingly, the appeal of assessee is allowed. Issues:1. Validity of penalty under section 221(1) of the Income Tax Act.2. Consideration of revised computation of income by the authorities.3. Applicability of Section 221(2) of the Act on penalty cancellation.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: The case involved the validity of a penalty levied under section 221(1) of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer (AO) had imposed a penalty on the assessee for non-payment of admitted tax, despite the assessee filing a revised computation of income. The penalty was challenged by the assessee before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)), who upheld the penalty. However, the Tribunal considered the revised computation of income and the deletion of additions made by the AO, concluding that since the addition had been deleted and there was no outstanding tax demand, the penalty was not sustainable. The Tribunal referred to a similar case from Mumbai where it was held that the amended provisions did not envisage a penalty for non-payment of self-assessment tax, leading to the penalty being unjustified.Issue 2: The authorities considered the revised computation of income filed by the assessee and deleted the additions made by the AO. The CIT(A) accepted the revised computation and deleted the additions, which became final as the Revenue did not file an appeal against it. The Tribunal found that since the additions were deleted, there was no outstanding tax demand, rendering the penalty unsustainable.Issue 3: The Tribunal referred to Section 221(2) of the Act, which states that if the amount of tax is wholly reduced due to a final order, the penalty levied shall be canceled, and the penalty paid shall be refunded. Considering the final order of the CIT(A) and the deletion of additions, the Tribunal applied Section 221(2) and canceled the penalty levied under section 221(1) of the Act. The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee based on these grounds.In conclusion, the Tribunal held that the penalty under section 221(1) of the Income Tax Act was not sustainable due to the deletion of additions and absence of outstanding tax demand. The Tribunal also invoked Section 221(2) of the Act to cancel the penalty, ultimately allowing the appeal of the assessee.