2025 (4) TMI 600 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal Invalidates Tax Penalties Due to Lack of Incriminating Evidence, Follows Supreme Court Precedent in Landmark Ruling

Rama Pashu Aahar Pvt. Ltd. Versus ACIT, CC – 14, New Delhi And Rama Hygienic Products Pvt. Ltd., Rama Allied Products Marketing Pvt. Ltd. Versus DCIT, CC – 14, New Delhi.

INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL CASE SUMMARYThe Tribunal addressed penalties under Section 271(1)(c) of Income-tax Act. After reviewing the assessment orders, the ... Levying of penalty u/s 271 (1)(c) - addition made in the assessment order, which forms the basis for penalty, is deleted -HELD THAT:- We observed that coordinate bench in the quantum proceedings in assessee’s own case [2025 (3) TMI 145 - ITAT DELHI] held that the assessment completed u/s 153A is without any incriminating material and, accordingly quashed the assessment order. Hence, we hold that when the assessment order in quantum appeal is quashed, the penalty levied on the basis of the quantum appeal is not sustainable. Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal vide order dated 29.02.2025 (supra) quashed the assessment. In these circumstances, the penalty levied by the AO is not sustainable in view of the law laid down in case cited as K.C. Builders & Anr [2004 (1) TMI 7 - SUPREME COURT] because “when the addition made in the assessment order on the basis of which penalty for concealment is levied have been deleted there remains no basis at all for levying the penalty for concealment and in such case, no penalty can survive and the penalty is liable to be cancelled.” So, in view of the matter, the penalty order passed by the AO and confirmed by the ld. CIT (A) is set aside and the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe primary issue considered in this judgment is the imposition of penalties under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Specifically, the Tribunal addressed whether the penalties for concealment of income were sustainable when the underlying assessment orders, which formed the basis for these penalties, were quashed due to lack of incriminating material.ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS1. Legality of Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, provides for the imposition of penalties on assessees for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Tribunal referred to the precedent set by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.C. Builders & Anr vs. ACIT, which established that if the addition made in the assessment order, which forms the basis for penalty, is deleted, the penalty cannot survive.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the assessments completed under Section 153A were without any incriminating material. The coordinate bench had quashed these assessments in the quantum appeals. The Tribunal reasoned that since the assessments were quashed, the penalties based on these assessments were unsustainable.Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal observed that the coordinate bench had already quashed the assessment orders in the quantum proceedings for the relevant assessment years. This quashing was due to the absence of incriminating material during the assessment under Section 153A.Application of Law to Facts: Applying the principles established in K.C. Builders & Anr vs. ACIT, the Tribunal concluded that since the assessment orders were quashed, the penalties for concealment of income could not be sustained. The absence of a valid assessment order meant there was no basis for the penalties.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Tribunal considered the submissions of both the assessee and the Revenue. The Revenue's argument for sustaining the penalty was implicitly rejected based on the precedent that a penalty cannot stand if the underlying assessment is invalid.Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the penalties imposed under Section 271(1)(c) were not sustainable as the assessments were quashed. Consequently, the penalties were set aside, and the appeals filed by the assessees were allowed.SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSThe Tribunal held that penalties under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, cannot be sustained if the assessment order, which forms the basis for the penalty, is quashed due to lack of incriminating material. This holding aligns with the legal principle established in K.C. Builders & Anr vs. ACIT, where the Supreme Court stated, 'when the addition made in the assessment order on the basis of which penalty for concealment is levied have been deleted there remains no basis at all for levying the penalty for concealment and in such case, no penalty can survive and the penalty is liable to be cancelled.'The Tribunal's decision underscores the importance of a valid assessment order as a prerequisite for imposing penalties for concealment of income. The quashing of the assessment orders in the quantum appeals rendered the penalties unsustainable, leading to their cancellation and the allowance of the appeals filed by the assessees.