Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 1 vs. Shri Shyam Manohar Agrawal

I.T.A. No. 25/2016, 26/2016, 28/2016

23/01/2017 Shri Sanjay Lal, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri A.P. Shrivastava, with Shri Abhijeet Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellant. As the common questions of both law and facts are involved in all these three appeals filed by the revenue under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Appeal, they are being disposed of by this common order. For the Assessment year 2005-2006, 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 assessment orders were passed against the respondent assessee and they were finalized upto the stage of appeal, decided by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, challenging the orders passed by the Assessing Officer and the Appellate Authority, respondent/assessee filed appeals before this Court under Section 260-A being I.T.A. Nos.75/2013, 76/2013 and 77/2013, today by passing various orders, all these three appeals of the assessee have been allowed in part and matter has remanded back to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration. In these appeals filed by the Revenue their grievance is that penalty proceedings initiated under Section 270(1)(c) have been interfered with by the appellant authority, namely the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal only on account of the fact that appeal under Section 260(A) filed by the assessee have been admitted and they are pending consideration before this Court, being I.T.A. Nos.75/13, 76/13 and 77/13 and therefore, proceedings for penalty cannot be initiated. Shri Sanjay Lal, invited our attention to certain judgment of the Bombay High court and argued that merely because the appellate proceedings are pending under Section 260-A imposition of penalty and proceedings for the same cannot be quashed. Be that as it may be, the fact remains that today this court with regard to the same assessee has remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration and, therefore, presently now in these appeals the question of imposition of penalty and initiating proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) need not to be looked into again by the competent authority and take a decision while proceedings with the assessment based on the remand made. Accordingly, finding all these appeals to have been rendered infructuous, they are disposed of granting liberty to the revenue to seek indulgence of competent authority in case required for initiating proceedings under Section 270-(1)(c), while finalizing the assessment order on the basis of remand made all the legal questions involved are kept open to be considered at an appropriate stage. With the aforesaid all the three appeals stand disposed of.

(Rajendra Menon) (H.P. Singh) Acting Chief Justice Judge

ss/-