SHRI MOHANBHAI D. BHARWAD,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(2)(3), AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 268/AHD/2019Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 May 2021AY 2011-122 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that if the quantum of income is deleted, the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) becomes infructuous as the penalty is determined based on the quantum. Therefore, the penalty appeals are dismissed.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against penalty orders under Section 271(1)(c) for AYs 2010-11 and 2011-12. The assessee argued that the quantum appeals for these years were decided in their favour by the Tribunal.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can sustain when the underlying quantum of income has been deleted in appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: SHRI WASEEM AHMED&

For Respondent: Shri Dinesh Singh, Sr.D.R
Hearing: 22/04/2021Pronounced: 07/05/2021

PER Ms. MADHUMITA ROY - JM: Both the appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the orders both dated 30.11.2018 passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-4, Ahmedabad arising out of the penalty orders both dated 15.03.2017 passed by the ITO, Circle-4(2), Ahmedabad under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for A.Y. 2010-11 and 2011-12 respectively.

2.

At the time of hearing of the instant appeal the Ld. Counsel appearing for the assessee submitted before us that the quantum appeal in both the matters have been decided by this Ld. Tribunal in favour of the assessee in IT(SS)A No. 190&191/Ahd/2015 for A.Ys. 2010-11 and 2011-12. Hence, according to him the penalty has become infructuous. The copies of the said orders have also been filed before us.

1.

- 2 - Mohanbhai D. Bharwad vs. ITO A.Ys. 2010-11 & 2011-12 3. The Ld. DR has not been able to controvert such submission mentioned by the Ld. AR.

Upon perusal of the orders passed in IT(SS)A No. 190&191/Ahd/2015 it is ascertained that the quantum in respect of the assessee for A.Y. 2010-11 & 2011-12 has been decided by the Ld. Tribunal in favour of the assessee. It is needless to mention that if quantum is deleted the penalty does not sustain in view of the particular fact that under Section 271(1)(c) sub-clause (iii) of the Act penalty to be determined on the quantum and/or demand and thus the very basis of order of imposing penalty being the quantum when deleted the penalty become infructuous. In that view of the matter we find merit in the submission made by the Ld. AR. The penalty appeal is, therefore, dismissed as infructuous.

4.

In the combined result, both appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed. This Order pronounced in Open Court on 07/05/2021

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 →