Tribunal overturns tax penalty for lack of evidence, citing inconsistency in Assessing Officer's actions.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for the assessment year 2015-2016. The Tribunal emphasized the lack of evidence of concealment or inaccurate particulars and highlighted the inconsistency in the Assessing Officer's actions in different assessment years on similar facts.

---

---

Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in filing appeal before the Tribunal.
2. Imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 for A.Y. 2015-2016.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Condonation of Delay
The appeal by the assessee was directed against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) for A.Y. 2015-2016, with a delay of 07 days. The Learned Counsel for the Assessee attributed the delay to obtaining Power of Attorney and requested condonation, emphasizing the fair chances of success in the appeal. The Ld. D.R. opposed the condonation. The Tribunal, after hearing both parties, found sufficient cause for the delay and condoned it, proceeding to decide the appeal on merits.

Issue 2: Imposition of Penalty
The assessee, engaged in real estate and construction, followed the Percentage Completion Method. The A.O. completed the original assessment for A.Y. 2015-2016, determining the total income of the assessee at Rs. 30,08,070 and initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961, imposing a penalty of Rs. 8,78,990. The Ld. CIT(A) upheld the penalty. The Tribunal noted that the A.O. had accepted the profit calculated using the Percentage Completion Method for the preceding year without levying a penalty. In the absence of evidence of concealment or inaccurate particulars, the Tribunal set aside the penalty, emphasizing the inconsistency in the A.O.'s actions on similar facts in different assessment years. The appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the penalty was deleted.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the penalty imposed by the A.O. and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) for A.Y. 2015-2016, emphasizing the lack of evidence of concealment or inaccurate particulars and the inconsistency in the A.O.'s actions in different assessment years on similar facts.

---