Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2019 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (1) TMI 648 - AT - Income TaxPenalty u/s 271(1)(c) - assessment u/s 153A - Held that:- It is pertinent to observe that the well settled proposition of law in such a situation would be that courts used to decide a dispute between the parties, because it involves decisions on facts. It can also involve decision on point of law. Both may have bearing on the ultimate result of decision. When a court interprets a provision, it decides as to what is the meaning of provision and effect of the words used by the legislature. It is a declaration regarding the statute. Judgment declares as to what is the legislative intent at the time of proclamation of law. The declaration is …. “This was the law, this is the law and this is how provision shall construe.” Scope of section 153A has been explained in these four decisions therefore, it is incumbent upon us to take cognizance all these decisions and take note of additional legal point raised in appeal. If facts are being examined, then it would reveal that had the assessee challenged quantum addition, then that addition could have been deleted. But since the assessee has not challenged that does not mean that the AO has got jurisdiction to visit the assessee with penalty also. Once no incriminating material was found and time limit to issue notice u/s 143(2) had already expired, no action could have been taken against the assessee even in quantum. If no action could have been taken in the quantum proceedings, then how penalty which is to be computed on the basis of quantum addition could be levied upon the assessee ? Considering the above facts and circumstances, and in the light of the above four decisions, we are of the view that penalty is not sustainable in the case of the assessee. It is deleted. - Decided in favour of assessee.
|