Per Court :
1. The Commissioner Appeals has deleted the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer under Section 271(1)(c). The said order was confirmed by the Tribunal aggrieved there by the present appeal.
2. Mr.Malhotra the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal had earlier allowed the quantum appeal and also deleted the penalty. The revenue filed an appeal before this Court against the quantum proceedings. This Court allowed the appeal of the revenue. Thereafter, the assessing officer has again taken up the penalty proceedings by giving opportunity to the respondent-assessee and thereafter imposed penalty. The Tribunal has decided the matter on merit. The approach of the Tribunal is erroneous. The assessee could not show the amount outstanding against one Akshad Corporation. Even the address given by the assessee of the said Akshad Corporation was false. The assessing officer considered all these aspects. The said addition of income warranted penalty under Section 271(1)(c). According to the learned counsel the order is perverse.
3. We have considered the submissions. It is a matter of record that in an earlier round the Tribunal had set aside the penalty imposed upon the assessee and had also allowed the quantum appeal filed by the assessee. The revenue filed appeal to this Court only against quantum proceedings and no appeal was filed against the order of the Tribunal deleting penalty. The appeal filed by the revenue against the order of the Tribunal allowing the quantum of appeal was allowed. This Court made following observations:
"Counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee has stated that with a view to resolving the entire issue the assessee accepts the addition which been made by the Assessing Officer for Assessment Year 2001-02 reserving the right of the assessee to contest the issue as regards the imposition of a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) in the event an appeal is filed by the Revenue against the deletion of the penalty. In the event of such appeal being filed, it has been stated that the concession which has been made. In the present appeal should not foreclose the assessee from urging all contentions on Merits. In the circumstances, in view of the statement which has been made on behalf of the assessee, the impugned order of the Tribunal is set aside to the aforesaid extent by answering the question of law in the negative and in favour of the Revenue."
4. This Court observed that in the event the revenue files an appeal the rights of the assessee would not be foreclosed and the assessee will have right to urge all contentions. It is not disputed that the revenue did not file appeal against the order of the Tribunal setting aside the order of penalty. The order of the Tribunal allowing the appeal and deleting penalty under Section 271(1)(c) has become final. The assessing officer did not have any jurisdiction to again commence the penalty proceedings on the basis of same additional income for which penalty proceedings were already set aside. The Commissioner appeals has also discussed the said aspect so also the Tribunal. Though the Commissioner Appeals also considered the merits of the matter in our opinion it was not necessary to do so. Their observation and finding that the Assessing Officer could not have revisited the order of the penalty and should not have commenced the penalty proceedings a fresh, is in consonance with the proprietary and judicial discipline.
5. In the light of the above the Income Tax appeal is dismissed. No substantial question of law is raised. No costs