KALYAN JI MISHRA,MIRZAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3(1), MIRZAPUR

ITA 39/ALLD/2020Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad19 January 2022AY 2009-104 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the quantum appeal, which formed the basis for the penalty, had been set aside by a coordinate bench of the Tribunal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Therefore, the penalty order was also set aside.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer made additions for cash deposits, household expenses, and under Section 40A(3). Subsequently, a penalty was levied under Section 271(1)(c). The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed for non-prosecution.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) is sustainable when the underlying additions are subject to fresh adjudication in the quantum appeal. Whether the CIT(A) order was passed ex-parte without a reasonable opportunity.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 40A(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ALLAHABAD “SMC” BENCH, ALLAHABAD

Before: SHRI.VIJAY PAL RAO

For Appellant: Mr. Praveen Godbole, CA
For Respondent: Mr. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Hearing: 18.01.2022Pronounced: 19.01.2022

PER SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 6th Nov., 2019 of CIT(A) arising from penalty order passed under Section 271(1))(C) of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2009-10. The assessee has raised the following grounds:- “1. That in any view of the matter penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(C) by order dated 16.03.2015 imposing penalty of Rs. 5,10,000/- is based both on the facts and in law.

2.

That in any view of the matter the assessee has not concealed any particulars of income nor furnished any inaccurate particulars hence imposition of penalty of Rs. 5,10,000/- is highly unjustified.

3.

That in view of the matter the Ld. CIT(A) was wrong in passing the order ex-parte wi

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →