Loading judgment…
Facts
The Assessing Officer levied penalties under Sections 271D and 271E of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Years 2013-14 to 2016-17. The CIT(Appeals) deleted these penalties after deleting the quantum additions. The ITAT reversed the CIT(Appeals)'s quantum findings, but the assessee has appealed to the High Court.
Held
The Tribunal condoned a 7-day delay in filing appeals and remitted the penalty appeals back to the Assessing Officer. The AO is directed to await the outcome of the assessee's quantum appeals before the Hon'ble High Court and then initiate penalty proceedings afresh, providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
Key Issues
The key legal issue is whether the penalties under Sections 271D and 271E should be sustained, which is contingent on the final outcome of the quantum appeals pending before the High Court.
Sections Cited
Section 271D, Section 271E
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AGRA BENCH, AGRA
Before: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN & SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH
ORDER PER BENCH:
At the outset, it is brought to our notice that all these appeals are challenging the deletion of penalties levied by the Assessing Officer u/s. 271E and 271D of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act” for short) for the assessment years 2013-14 to 2016-17.
Since common issue is involved in all these appeals, the same were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience and brevity.
It is noticed that the appeals pertaining to assessment years 2013- 14, 2014-15 and 2016-17 have been filed delayed by 7 days. The reasons for delay assigned in delay condonation applications are late receipt of impugned orders from the office of CIT(Appeals), Kanpur and huge pendency of time barring matters with the Assessing Officer. In the interest of justice, the meager delay of 7 days in filing the appeals is condoned.
The brief facts brought to our notice relevant to these appeals are, aggrieved with the assessment orders, passed in quantum, as well as penalty orders, levying penalties by the Assessing Officer, assessee preferred appeals before the learned CIT(Appeals) and learned CIT(Appeals) deleted the quantum and accordingly deleted all the penalties involved in assessee’s appeals and decided the issues in favour of the assessee.
Aggrieved with the above orders passed by learned CIT(Appeals) in quantum appeals, Revenue preferred appeals before ITAT and the ITAT has reversed the findings of learned CIT(Appeals). Against the above orders of ITAT, assessee preferred appeals before Hon’ble High Court and the Hon’ble High Court has admitted the appeals of the assessee and pending adjudication.
Considering the above facts on record, the present penalty appeals preferred by the Revenue are dependent upon the outcome of the quantum appeals preferred by the assessee before the Hon’ble High 2 | P a g e Court. That being the case, the present appeals, challenging the deletion of penalties, are remitted back to the file of Assessing Officer with the direction to follow the decision of the Hon’ble High Court on the quantum appeals. Based on the above findings, the Assessing Officer is given liberty to initiate the penalty proceedings afresh dependent upon the outcome in assessee’s appeals pending before Hon’ble High Court, after giving proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
In the result, all the appeals preferred by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes.