TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 449X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ge K, JM And Shri B.R.Baskaran, AM For the Appellant : Smt.Pratibha R., Advocate For the Respondent : Sri.Pradeep Kumar, CIT-DR ORDER PER GEORGE GEORGE K, JM This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against CIT(A) s order dated 19.06.2017. The relevant assessment year is 2012-2013. 2. The solitary issue raised is whether the CIT(A) is justified in imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act amounting to ₹ 57,29,893. 3. The brief facts of the case are as follow: The assessee had entered into an agreement dated 06.06.2011 with M/s.Skyline Construction and Housing Private Limited. As per the agreement, permission of right of way through assessee s land was given to M/s.Skyline Construct ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in ITA No.1384/Bang/2017 (order dated 31.05.2018). 5. In the meanwhile, the CIT(A) issued notice dated 16.05.2017 u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act directing the assessee to show cause why penalty u/s 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed on enhancement made by him in the quantum assessment. The CIT(A) vide order dated 19.08.2017 imposed penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act for the enhancement made by him in the quantum assessment (i.e. penalty was imposed on quantum enhancement of ₹ 2 crore). The CIT(A) imposed penalty of ₹ 57,29,893 being 100% of tax sought to be evaded. The relevant finding of the CIT(A) in imposing penalty of ₹ 57,29,893 reads as follow:- 9. Now I proceed in levying the penalty on the enhancemen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. Tax on assessed income as per order u/s 143(3) dated 16.03.2015 66,18,780 3. Tax on enchantment of assessment order after given effect by ITO-W-5(1)(2) vide letter dated 08.05.2017 1,23,48,673 4. Difference of 3-1 is the tax on income concealed 57,29,893 5. The minimum penalty @ 100% of the tax evaded. 57,29,893 6. The maximum penalty @ 300% of the tax evaded 1,71,89,679 Thus, the minimum penalty leviable in this case at 100% of the tax sought to be evaded is ₹ 57,2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mposed be deleted. 4. In the order appealed against, the learned CIT (A) has merely repeated his reasons for passing the appellate order in the quantum appeal. On the basis of those reasons, penalty under section 271 (1)(c) cannot be levied. The order imposing penalty may, therefore, kindly be quashed and the penalty imposed be deleted. 5. While passing the order imposing penalty, the learned CIT (A) has not considered the reply to the penalty notice submitted by the Appellant on 26.05.2017 wherein detailed reasons have been given as to why penalty cannot be imposed. This reply finds no mention in the order imposing penalty. In fact, on page 5 of the penalty order, the learned CIT (A) has referred to the Appellant&# ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Dr.Harsha N.Biliangady in ITA No.292 of 2014 (judgment dated 10th March, 2015) it was contended that when the High Court had admitted the appeal u/s 260A of the I.T.Act as regards the quantum assessment, the penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act needs to be quashed because the mere admission of appeal by High Court on substantial question of law would make it apparent that additions made were debatable. 8. The learned Departmental Representative relied on the order of the CIT(A). 9. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. As regards the quantum assessment, the issue was decided against the assessee by the ITAT in its order dated 31.05.2018 in ITA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
