M/S AXIS EDUCATION TECHNOLOGIES (P) LTD.,LUDHIANA vs. CIT(A)-3, LUDHIANA
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that since the assessment order, which formed the basis for levying the penalty, had been set aside by a previous ITAT order, the penalty could not survive. Therefore, the penalties were liable to be deleted.
What were the facts?
The assessees appealed against penalty orders under Section 271(1)(c) for AY 2010-11. The basis for these penalties was the assessment order passed by the AO.
What were the issues?
Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be sustained when the assessment order, on which it is based, has been set aside.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide 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.
- K.C. Builders & Anr. v. ACIT241 citing265 ITR 562 · 2004 · SC · Read judgment
Heard together (2 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
आदेश/Order PER: DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER
These two appeals filed by different Assessees against separate orders
dated 28/05/2019 of Ld. CIT(A)-3, Ludhiana for the A.Y. 2010-11are being decided by a common order for the sake of convenience.
In both the appeals, the only grievance of the respective assessees is the action of the ld. CIT(A) in sustaining the respective penalty orders passed by M/s Abacus Edutech (P) Ltd. Vs CIT(A) & 1 Anr. the A.O. U/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as,
the Act).
During the course of hearing, the ld. Counsel for the assessee at the very
outset stated that the assessment order on the basis of which the impugned
penalty was levied, had been set aside by this Bench of the ITAT in ITA No. 548 &
549/Chd/2019 for the A.Y. 2010-11 vide order dated 22/04/2021 in assessee’s
own case. Copy of the said order was furnished which is placed on record.
The ld. Sr.DR, although supported the order of the authorities below but could not controvert the aforesaid contention of the ld. Counsel for the assessee.
I have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused the material available on record. In the present case, it is noticed that the assessment order dated 11/03/2016 passed by the A.O. U/s 143(3) of the Act in the case of both the assesses which were the very basis for levying penalty U/s 271(1)(c) has been quashed vide the aforesaid common order dated
22/04/2021 in ITA No. 548 & 549/Chd/2019 (supra), therefore, the addition on the basis of which the impugned penalties U/s 271(1)(c) of the Act were levied by the A.O. and sustained by the ld. CIT(A), are not in existence. In view thereof,
the impugned penalties levied by the A.O. and sustained by the ld. CIT(A)
deserve to be deleted. Support is drawn from the decision of the Hon'ble Apex M/s Abacus Edutech (P) Ltd. Vs CIT(A) & 1 Anr. wherein on a similar issue the Court was pleased to hold:
“Where the additions made in the assessment order on the basis of which penalty for concealment is levied, are deleted, there remains no basis at all for levying penalty for concealment and, therefore, in such a case no penalty can survive and the penalty is liable to be cancelled. Ordinarily, penalty cannot stand if the assessment itself is set aside.”
In the present cases, the basis for levying the penalties U/s 271(1)(c) are not in existence, as the assessment itself is set aside, I, therefore, by following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid case, allow the appeals of the assessees by quashing the impugned penalties U/s 271(1)(c) of the Act levied by the A.O. and sustained by the ld. CIT(A).
In the result, both these appeals of the assessees are allowed.
(Order pronounced in the open Court on 11/05/2021) ("दवा "संह) (DIVA SINGH) "या"यक सद"य/Judicial Member Date: 11/05/2021 *Ranjan आदेश क" ""त"ल"प अ"े"षत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ"/ The Appellant
""यथ"/ The Respondent 3. आयकर आयु"त/ CIT 4. आयकर आयु"त (अपील)/ The CIT(A)
"वभागीय ""त"न"ध, आयकर अपील"य आ"धकरण, च"डीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. गाड" फाईल/ Guard File
आदेशानुसार/ By order,
More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
- Shalin Jayantbhai Desai, Vadodara vs ACIT, Circle-4(2), Vadodara Present…ITA 2569/AHD/2026[2010-11]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2010-11
- Neo Structo Construction P. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs The Pr. CIT- 3, AhmedabadITA 1216/AHD/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2370/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2369/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- S. Nithyananda vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- Ritik vs. State Of M.P.Madhya Pradesh · 16 Oct 2026
- Venkadeswara Grill Works vs. The Joint Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
- Mufti Clothing And Co vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
- U Days Garments vs. The Adjudication OfficerMadras · 16 Oct 2026
