ORDER
1. The following two substantial questions of law arise for consideration and are hereby formulated :
1. Whether the learned Tribunal was right in deleting penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961 on the ground that the total income of the assessed has been assessed at a minus figure/loss ?
2. Whether the learned Tribunal was justified in holding that the judgments in CIT v. Prithipal Singh & Co. and will apply even after insertion of Expln. 4 to Section 271(l)(c) w.e.f. 1st April, 1976 ?
2. Similar questions were examined by a Division Bench of this Court in CIT v. Aditya Chemicals Ltd. and Ors. IT Appeal No. 205/2001 and connected matters reported at (2005) 197 CTR (Del) 241–Ed, and answered in the following words :
18. Hence, answering question 1 in favor of the Revenue, we hold that the Tribunal was not right in deleting the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961 merely on the ground that the total income of the assessed has been assessed at a minus figure/loss. Question 2 has already been answered in the negative by us.
19. In all these appeals, the Tribunal decided against the Revenue and in favor of the assessed without going into the merits of the question in each case so as to return a positive finding of fact that the assessed in each case had ‘concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income’. Nor did it examine the quantum of penalty in each case. The Tribunal decided the appeals before it on the understanding that where there was a returned loss and a reduced loss was assessed, there could be no question of imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. This understanding, we have indicated above, does not hold good for the period between the said 1976 and 2003 amendments. This being the position, answering the questions as indicated above and allowing all the appeals we remand all these cases to the Tribunal for disposal on merits. No costs.
3. Mr. Bansal at this stage submits that although similar other matters have been remanded by this Court to the Tribunal for fresh disposal on merits, the remand in the present case may be made to the CIT(A) keeping in view the fact that the CIT(A) has not examined the question regarding concealment on merits. He submits that even if the matter is remanded to the Tribunal, the Tribunal may have to eventually send it to the CIT(A) for recording a finding on facts. He, therefore, submits that the remand directly to the CIT(A) would be more appropriate. Mr. Goel does not seriously oppose that submission. In the circumstances, therefore, we remand the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh disposal of the matter on merits in the light of the judgment of this Court in Aditya Chemicals Ltd.’s case (supra) and the observations made hereinabove.