Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Amritsar
Shrimati Jatinder Kaur(Alias Amrita), ... vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax ... on 16 March, 2021
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
DIVISION BENCH, AMRITSAR
(VIRTUAL COURT)
BEFORE: SMT.ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
AND SHRI R.L. NEGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER
Stay Application Nos.9 to 12/ASR/2021
In
ITA Nos. 728 to 731/Asr/2019
(Assessment Years : 2011-12, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2016-17)
Jatinder Kaur, बनाम The A.C.I.T.,
326A, GTB Nagar, Circle-II,
Jalandhar. Jalandhar.
थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO:
नधा रती क ओर से/Assessee by : S hr i Y . K. S ud , C A
राज व क ओर से/ Revenue by : S hr i M .P . S in gh , CIT DR
सन
ु वाई क तार ख/Date of Hearing : 16.03.2021
उदघोषणा क तार ख/Date of Pronouncement: 16.03.2021
(Hearing through webex)
आदे श/ORDER
Per Anna pur na G upta, Account ant Member :
Vi d e the i ns ta n t a p p li ca ti on s th e a s se s se e i s se e k i ng sta y of the pe na l ty p r oce e d i ngs in it ia t e d i n he r cas e u/s 27 1 ( 1) ( c) of th e I nc ome Ta x A ct, 1 9 6 1 (i n s ho rt ' the Act ') i n a sse ssme nt ye a r s 2011-12, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2016-17.
2. Th e Ld . C oun se l for the a s se s see c ont e nde d th a t t he a sse ssme nt in a ll th e c a se s h a d be e n fr a me d u/s 1 53 A of 2 SA Nos. 9 to12/Asr/2021 2011-12, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2016-17 the Act , c ons e qu e nt to se a r ch a cti on in it ia t e d on t he a sse sse e a nd a ddi ti on ma d e on a cc oun t of mon e y t r a ns fe rre d in th e a cc oun t of th e a s se s se e b y he r f a the r re ma i ni ng un e xp la ine d . Th a t th e a s se s se e h a d p re fe r re d a n a p pe al be fore the I TA T a ga i n st th e or de r of the CI T( A ) w ho h a d con fi r me d th e ord e r of the AO , whi ch w a s st il l pen d in g. Tha t in th e me a n w hi le , pe n a lty p r oce e d i ngs u /s 2 7 1 ( 1) ( c) of the Act w e re i n iti a te d b y th e AO a nd d e sp i te re pe a ted re q ue sts by t he a s se s se e to k ee p the sa me in a b e ya n ce t il l t he di sp os a l of th e ap p e a l s in q u a nt um pr oc e e d i ng s b y th e I TA T, the A O w a n te d to c omp le te the pr oce e d in gs w i th out w a i ti ng for the or de r of th e I TA T i n q ua n t um p r oce e d in gs.
3. Th e Ld . C oun se l for the a s se s see c ont e nde d th a t t he sol e p r a ye r w a s to gr a n t sta y wi th r e spe ct to the p a ssi n g of the or de r u /s 2 7 1 (1 ) (c ) o f th e A ct a n d t ha t th e re wa s no obj e c ti on to the con ti nu a ti on of the pe n a l ty p ro cee d in gs as suc h. He c ont e nde d th a t hi s p l ea me r it e d c on si de r a tio n for the re a son th a t th e a d d i tio ns ma de i n q u a ntu m p r ocee d in gs we re l ia b le t o be de le te d , the ass e ssee ha v in g a good a n d str on g c a se si n ce a l l the a dd i ti ons h a d b ee n ma d e w i th out a ny i n cr imi n a ti n g ma te r ia l a s th e b a si s a n d ther e we re a pl e t hor a of ju d icia l de ci si on s i n cl ud i ng th a t of the H on 'ble De lh i Hi gh C ou rt in th e ca se of C I T v s. Ka b ul C h a wl a 380 3 SA Nos. 9 to12/Asr/2021 2011-12, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2016-17 I TR 5 7 3 a n d of th e I TA T C h a nd i ga r h B e n ch i n th e c a se of Ma la B ui l de r s ( P ) Ltd . vs. A C I T 5 1 I TR ( Tr i b ) 27 2 , ho ld i ng tha t no a d di ti on cou l d be ma d e in se a r ch a s se s sme n ts wi th out a ny in cr i mi na ti n g ma t e ri a l in c a se s w h e re the a sse ssme nt or de rs h a d a tt a in e d f ina l i ty a n d ha d not a b a te d . He ple a de d t ha t the pa s si ng of the pe na l ty or de r in su ch ci rc ums ta nc e s w ou ld on ly e n ta i l mu lt ip l ic it y of p r oce e d in gs a nd ha r a s sme n t to th e a s se s se e. Th a t i t wo ul d b e i n t he fi tn e ss of ma tte rs to a w a it the or d e r of th e I TA T i n q ua n tu m pr oc ee d i ng s be f or e p a ss in g the pe na l ty or de r s in ce e ve n the Act pr ov i de d a dd i ti ona l s ix mo n th s t ime to d i sp ose of t he pe na l ty pr ocee d in gs f r om th e e nd of th e mon th i n w h ic h t he Tr i b un a l or d e r w a s ob ta i ne d a s p e r se cti on 2 7 5 (1 ) ( a) of t he Act . The Ld . C o un se l re l ie d u p on th e or d e r of th e I TA T C ha n d ig a rh B e nch in th e ca se of P un j a b I n sti tu te of Me d i ca l Sci e n ce Vs. DCIT ( 20 1 9 ) 199 TTJ ( C hd ) 271, d a te d 18 . 03 . 2 01 9 , w h er e i n , i t w a s poin te d out t ha t in i d e n tic a l fa ct s a n d ci rc u m s ta nc e s t he I TA T h a d sta ye d pa s si ng of t he fi na l or d e r in th e pe n a lty pr oc ee d i ng s re l yi ng up on t he ju dg me n t of t he H on 'b le G uj a r a t Hi gh C our t in t he ca se of AC I T Vs. G .E . I nd i a I n d ust r ia l P vt. Ltd . ( 20 1 4 ) 99 D TR ( G uj ) 37 1 . C op y of the or d e r of th e I TA T w a s p la c e d b e for e us. He fu rt he r c onte nde d t ha t t he q u a ntum a p p e a l w a s pe n di n g on a ccou nt of t he non fu nc ti oni n g o f the Be nc he s a t A mr its a r 4 SA Nos. 9 to12/Asr/2021 2011-12, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2016-17 wh e re t he ma t te r w a s l is te d a nd th e re w a s n o ce rt ain ty a s to w h e n the a pp e a l wo ul d be p os si b ly h e a r d a n d in t he ci rc ums ta nc e s if th e p a s si ng of the pe n a lty or der w a s not sta ye d i t w ou ld be u nf a ir a nd on l y r e s ul t i n un n e ce ssa r y ha r a ss me n t t o t h e a sse ssee p a rt ic ul a r ly w h e n sh e ha d a fa i r ly good ca s e a n d the re w a s n o c e r ta i nty re ga r d i ng t he di sp os a l of th e qua n tu m a p p e a l .
4. Th e Ld . D R ob j e cte d to the sa me sta t in g t ha t the C I T(A ) in a ny ca se ha d r e du ce d t he a dd iti on ma de a nd th e p a s si ng of th e pe na l ty p roce e d in gs nee d no t b e st a ye d .
5. We h a ve con si de re d the r i va l su b mis si ons . W e a r e of the vie w th a t the a sse sse e h a s a ju sti fi a b l e ca se f or se e k i ng sta y i n t he p a ssi ng o f th e fi na l p e n a l ty or de rs t il l t he di sp os a l of th e q u a ntu m a p p e a l s of the a ss e s see b y t he Tr i b un a l. The a s se s se e ha s p le a de d th a t i t ha s a go od c a se in q ua n tum p r oc ee d i ng s w hi ch a re pe n d in g be f ore t he I TA T, Amr it sa r B e nc h a nd th e re i s n o pos si b il i ty or ce r tai n ty a s to wh e n the y sh a l l c ome up f or h e a r i ng s i nce the B e n che s are non fu nc ti ona l a s of n ow . Fu r th e r it ha s a ls o b ee n b r oug ht to our no tic e tha t the Le gi sl a ture i n a n y ca s e h as p ro vi de d a dd i ti ona l time f or p a ss in g pe na l ty or d e r s a fte r the q ua n tu m a pp e a ls a re d e c id e d b y the I TA T i n s e ct ion 27 5 ( 1) ( a ) of t he Act . I n th is b a ck gr ou nd of the fa c ts a n d ci rc ums ta nc e s 5 SA Nos. 9 to12/Asr/2021 2011-12, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2016-17 re la t in g t o th e iss ue , w h i ch ha v e re ma in e d u nc ontr ov e r te d by th e Ld . DR , w e a gr e e w i th th e Ld . C oun se l f or t he a ss e ssee tha t the e n d s of ju sti ce w oul d be de fe a te d if th e A O i s a ll ow e d to pa s s t he pe na l ty or der , w h e n the h a nd s of t he a sse sse e a re tie d a n d i t c a nn ot a r gue i ts q ua n tum a p p e a l for r e a son s t ota l ly b e yon d h e r co ntr ol . W e a g re e t ha t it wo ul d on ly re su l t i n un w a r ra n te d mul ti p li ci ty of p r oce e d in gs a nd of co ur se c aus e ha r a ss me n t to the a s se sse e w hi ch ca n a ll b e a v oide d b y sta yi n g t he p a ssin g of th e pe na lty or d e r .
6. W e d r a w su pp or t f r om th e j ud gme n t of the I TA T B e n ch in the ca se of Pu nj a b I ns ti tute of Me d ic a l S ci e n ce V s. D CI T (s up r a ) w he re in i n i de nti c a l fa c ts a n d c ir cu ms ta n ce s t he I TA T ha d g ra nte d sta y i n th e p as si ng of th e fi na l or de r as un de r :
"The present stay application has been moved by the assessee for stay of the penalty proceedings Initiated against the assessee under s. 271(l)(c) of the IT Act. 1961 (in short 'the Act').
2. It has been pleaded in the application that the assessee is a Government institute and that the Department has wrongly raised the impugned demand against the assessee on account of capital gains on accrual basis, whereas no such capital gains have accrued to the assessee. That the quantum appeal for the impugned assessment year is pending before the Tribunal and that the assessee has a fair case on merits. It has been pleaded that if in the meanti me the penalty proceedings are carried out or if the penalty is levied, it will result into multiplicity of litigation besides harassment and pecuniary loss to the 6 SA Nos. 9 to12/Asr/2021 2011-12, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2016-17 assessee. The learned counsel for the assessee has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Asstt. C1T vs. GE India Industrial (P) Ltd, (2014) 99 DTR (Guj) 371 : (2014) 266 CTR (Guj) 207. wherein, it has been held that in view of the multiplicity of proceedings and harassment to the assessee and considering s. 275(l)(a), when the AO will get further six months time to dispose of the penalty proceedings from the end of the month in which the order of the Tribunal is received, the action of the Tribunal staying the penalty proceedings during the pendency of the appeal before it cannot said to be without jurisdiction or exceeding its jurisdiction.
3 The learned Departmental Representative, on the other hand, has submitted that, the AO has a right to continue with the penalty proceedings and that the penalty proceedings should not be stayed at this juncture.
4. After considering the rival submissions and also in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Asstt. CIT vs. GE India Industrial (P) Ltd. (supra), we direct the AO not to pass final penalty order t i l l the disposal of the quantum appeal of the assessee by the Tribunal. However, there will not be any stay against conducting of the penalty proceedings. Only the passing of the final order has been stayed.
5. With the above observations, (his stay application of the assessee Is treated as partly allowed."
7. I n v ie w of th e a bo ve , we d ir e c t t he a sse s si ng off i ce r not to p a ss th e f in a l p e n a lt y or d e rs ti ll th e d i sp os a l o f t he q ua n tum a pp e a ls of the a sse ssee b y t he Tr ib u n a l . We ma y a dd , h ow e ve r , th a t the re ma y n ot be a ny st ay a ga in st con du cti n g th e pe n a lty pr ocee d i ngs a n d on l y the p a ssi n g of the f in a l or de r s h a s b ee n s ta ye d.
7 SA Nos. 9 to12/Asr/2021
2011-12, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2016-17 W i th t he a bo ve ob se r va tio ns, th e i mp ug ne d Sta y Ap p li ca t ion s of th e a sse ssee a re tr e a te d a s p a r tl y a ll ow e d .
8. Re sul ta n tl y, a l l th e a b ove Sta y A pp l i ca ti on s f i le d by t he a sse sse e sta n d pa r tl y a ll ow e d .
Order pronounced at the t im e of c o n c l u s io n of hearing.
Sd/- Sd/-
(R.L. NEGI) (ANNAPURNA GUPTA)
याय क सद य/Judicial Member लेखा सद य/Accountant Member
Dated: 16th March, 2021
*रती*
आदे श क % त&ल'प अ*े'षत/ Copy of the order forwarded to :
1. अपीलाथ+/ The Appellant
2. %,यथ+/ The Respondent
3. आयकर आयु-त/ CIT
4. आयकर आयु-त (अपील)/ The CIT(A)
5. 'वभागीय % त न0ध, आयकर अपील य आ0धकरण, च2डीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH
6. गाड फाईल/ Guard File आदे शानस ु ार/ By order, सहायक पंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar