Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) deleted after quantum additions removed in capital gains exemption case

ITAT Ahmedabad dismissed the department's appeal regarding penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for denial of capital gains exemption under Section 10(38) on share sales. The assessee's company was deemed not engaged in substantial business and not declaring dividends, leading to exemption disallowance. However, since the quantum proceedings were decided in favor of the assessee by ITAT, the penalty was deleted. The tribunal held that once quantum additions are deleted, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be sustained, citing precedents from Gujarat and Rajasthan HCs establishing that penalty cannot survive when its foundational basis is removed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) by Ld. CIT(A).
2. Revenue's challenge against the deletion of penalty.

Summary:

1. Deletion of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) by Ld. CIT(A):

The Revenue filed an appeal against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) for Assessment Year 2014-15, which deleted the penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The brief facts reveal that the Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed the assessee's claim of exemption on capital gains amounting to Rs. 5,51,09,170/- u/s 10(38) on account of the sale of shares of M/s. Comfort Fincap Ltd., considering the company's business activities insubstantial. The Ld. CIT(A) initially sustained the AO's quantum additions, but the ITAT later deleted these additions, citing the lack of specific evidence proving the assessee's involvement in any collusion with entry operators or stockbrokers. The ITAT emphasized that "income generated by the assessee cannot be held bogus only based on the modus operandi, generalisation, and preponderance of human probabilities." The Tribunal referred to several judgments, including CIT vs. Sumitra Devi and Pr. CIT vs. Smt. Krishna Devi, to support its decision that mere suspicion or presumption without cogent material evidence cannot justify the addition.

2. Revenue's challenge against the deletion of penalty:

The AO levied a penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on the assessee, which was later deleted by the Ld. CIT(A) based on the ITAT's decision favoring the assessee in quantum proceedings. The Department appealed against this deletion, arguing that the ITAT's decision had been challenged before the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court. However, the Tribunal held that "once the additions made in quantum proceedings have been deleted, then there is no question of sustaining levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act." The Tribunal cited several judgments, including CIT v Shah Alloys, CIT v Atul Ltd., and CIT v Babul Harivadan Parikh, which consistently held that penalty cannot be imposed when the basis for such penalty (i.e., the addition) has been set aside. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the Department's appeal, affirming that "there is no scope of levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act" once the quantum proceedings are decided in favor of the assessee.

This Order pronounced in Open Court on 24/04/2024

---