2022 (1) TMI 646 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal quashes penalty under Income-tax Act for assessment year 2010-11, citing vacated additions.

Anandrao Sheshrao Bharose Versus The I.T.O., Ward 1 (4) Aurangabad

The tribunal allowed the appeal, quashing the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the ... Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) - addition of the assessee's agricultural income and addition of the sundry creditors u/s. 69-A - HELD THAT:- As addition of sundry creditors u/s. 69-A and addition of the assessee's agricultural income by treating the same as his income from other sources which had formed the very basis for saddling the assessee with penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, had been vacated by the Tribunal while disposing off the assessee's quantum appeal [2018 (11) TMI 1888 - ITAT PUNE] In the backdrop of the aforesaid fact, now when the abovementioned additions which formed the very basis for levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act had been vacated, therefore, the penalty imposed by the A.O. u/s. 271(1)(c) cannot survive on a standalone basis and has to meet the same fate. - Decided in favour of assessee. Issues Involved:1. Appeal against penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2010-11.2. Delay in filing the appeal and seeking condonation.3. Justifiability of the penalty based on additions made by the Assessing Officer.Analysis:Issue 1: Appeal against penalty under section 271(1)(c)The appeal was filed against the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2010-11. The appellant challenged the penalty on the grounds that it was not in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The CIT(A) had upheld the penalty, leading to the appeal before the tribunal.Issue 2: Delay in filing the appeal and seeking condonationThe appellant had filed the appeal with a delay of 12 days. The appellant explained that the delay occurred as they were awaiting the outcome of quantum appeals for the same and preceding years. The tribunal, considering the bona fides of the appellant and the short delay, decided to condone the delay in filing the appeal.Issue 3: Justifiability of the penalty based on additions made by the Assessing OfficerThe additions made by the Assessing Officer, which formed the basis for imposing the penalty, were later vacated by the Tribunal in the quantum appeal. The Tribunal noted that since the additions were vacated, the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) could not stand on its own and had to be deleted. Both the authorized representatives of the appellant and the Departmental Representative admitted to the vacating of the additions.In conclusion, the tribunal allowed the appeal, quashing the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The grounds related to the delay in filing the appeal were condoned, and the appeal of the appellant was allowed based on the vacating of the additions that formed the basis for the penalty.