2025 (2) TMI 227 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot survive when underlying addition deleted by Coordinate Bench

ITAT Ahmedabad held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot survive when the underlying addition on which it was based has been deleted by the ... Penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) - addition made in the quantum appeal are deleted by the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal - HELD THAT:- When the very addition on which penalty has been levied u/s 271(1)(c) has been deleted/set-aside for fresh adjudication, the penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) also does not survive. With due respect to the Tax Appeal pending before the Jurisdictional High Court, further Section 275(1A) of the Act provides that the Assessing Officer to impose or enhance or reduce or cancel penalty pursuant to the quantum appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) passed u/s. 246A or appeal before Appellate Tribunal passed u/s. 253 or appeal before High Court passed u/s. 260A or appeal before Supreme Court passed u/s. 261 or Revision order passed u/s. 263 of the Act by giving effect to the quantum order. No infirmity in the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) deleting Penalty levied u/s. 271[1][c] of the Act. Thus the AO has in-built power to give effect to every appellate order and consequently revise the penalty under section 271[1A] of the Act, therefore the ground raised by the Revenue is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe primary issue considered in this judgment was whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] was correct in deleting the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in light of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's (ITAT) decision in favor of the appellant, despite the Revenue's pending appeal before the Gujarat High Court.ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISRelevant Legal Framework and PrecedentsThe legal framework revolves around Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, which pertains to penalties for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Additionally, Section 275(1A) was considered, which allows for the imposition, enhancement, reduction, or cancellation of penalties post-appeal decisions.Court's Interpretation and ReasoningThe Tribunal examined whether the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the penalty based on the ITAT's previous decision, which had set aside the additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO). The Tribunal noted that the Revenue's appeal to the High Court did not include a stay on the ITAT's order, meaning the ITAT's decision remained operative.Key Evidence and FindingsThe ITAT had previously ruled in favor of the appellant, deleting the additions made by the AO. These deletions were crucial because the penalties under Section 271(1)(c) were contingent upon those additions.Regarding the addition of Rs. 7.25 million, the ITAT found that the unaccounted funds were related to the promoters of M/s Akshar Entertainment Limited, not the appellant, thus negating the basis for the penalty.The disallowance of a claimed loss of Rs. 55,63,457 was based on an incorrect assumption by the AO that the appellant had sold shares, which was not the case.For the loan of Rs. 1,03,57,900, the ITAT found that the appellant had discharged the onus under Section 68 for certain parties, leading to the deletion of related additions.In a Miscellaneous Application, the ITAT acknowledged an oversight regarding documents related to a loan from GGF Mercantile Pvt. Ltd., leading to a remand for fresh adjudication.Application of Law to FactsThe Tribunal applied the legal principles under Section 271(1)(c) and Section 275(1A) to the facts, determining that since the foundational additions for the penalty were either deleted or remanded for reconsideration, the penalties could not stand. The Tribunal emphasized that the absence of a stay from the High Court allowed the ITAT's decision to remain effective.Treatment of Competing ArgumentsThe Revenue argued for maintaining the penalty to keep the matter alive pending the High Court's decision. However, the Tribunal found this unpersuasive, given the lack of a stay and the ITAT's prior rulings in favor of the appellant. The appellant's argument that the penalty lacked a basis due to the deletion of additions was accepted.ConclusionsThe Tribunal concluded that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) because the underlying additions had been set aside or required fresh adjudication. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the CIT(A)'s decision.SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSCore Principles EstablishedPenalties under Section 271(1)(c) cannot survive if the underlying additions have been deleted or require fresh adjudication.The absence of a stay from a higher court allows the operative order of the ITAT to be enforced.Section 275(1A) provides the framework for revising penalties based on appellate decisions.Final Determinations on Each IssueThe penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was deleted as the additions on which it was based were either deleted or remanded for fresh adjudication.The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order, which followed the ITAT's previous decisions.The Revenue's appeal was dismissed due to the lack of merit in maintaining the penalty without a valid basis.