2004 (6) TMI 241 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal deletes penalty under section 271(1)(c) for 1990-91 assessment due to procedural irregularities

INCOME TAX OFFICER. Versus SMT. NEETA RANI.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of a penalty imposed by the AO under section 271(1)(c) for the assessment year 1990-91, totaling Rs. 61,470. The penalty ... - Issues:1. Challenge against deletion of penalty under section 271(1)(c) by the AO.2. Opportunity to prove non-concealment of income not provided by the AO.3. Consideration of reply filed by the assessee before imposing penalty.4. Legal basis for deletion of penalty by the CIT(A).5. Department's appeal against CIT(A)'s decision.6. Validity of penalty imposition by the AO.7. Requirement of opportunity to be heard before imposing penalty.Analysis:1. The appeal was against the deletion of a penalty imposed by the AO under section 271(1)(c) for the assessment year 1990-91, totaling Rs. 61,470.2. The AO made additions to the assessment, including Rs. 1,35,000 for drafts purchased and Rs. 18,500 for a loan raised. The CIT(A) deleted the loan amount but upheld the draft purchase addition, leading to the penalty imposition.3. The assessee contended that the AO did not allow an opportunity to prove non-concealment of income and did not consider the reply filed, citing relevant legal precedents like Jain Brothers vs. Union of India and CIT vs. Anwar Ali.4. The CIT(A) considered the arguments, reviewed assessment records, and found the penalty imposition lacking proper opportunity for the assessee to be heard. The penalty was deleted based on procedural irregularities.5. The Department appealed the CIT(A)'s decision, arguing for the restoration of the AO's penalty order. The assessee's counsel highlighted the lack of notice during a change of incumbent and the non-consideration of the reply filed by the assessee.6. The Tribunal found the AO's penalty imposition solely based on the sustained addition without proving concealment by the assessee. The failure to consider the detailed reply in the penalty order rendered it legally unsustainable.7. While upholding the penalty deletion, the Tribunal disagreed with the CIT(A)'s reasoning on the lack of opportunity under a new incumbent, citing legal precedent supporting the adequacy of the earlier notice and reply. The appeal of the Revenue was dismissed based on different grounds.In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the deletion of the penalty imposed by the AO, emphasizing procedural irregularities and lack of legal basis for the penalty imposition.