SPLENDID METAL PRODUCTS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1804/HYD/2019Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 September 2021AY 2015-163 pages

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

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided all relevant details during the scrutiny assessment. Therefore, the imposition of penalty for non-cooperation was erroneous.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal concerns a penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(b) for alleged non-cooperation during scrutiny. The Assessing Officer had made significant disallowances and additions during the assessment proceedings.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty under Section 271(1)(b) for non-cooperation is justified when the assessee has provided all necessary details during the assessment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(b),Section 143(3),Section 36(1)(iii),Section 14A,Section 115JB

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘ B ‘ Bench, Hyderabad

Before: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Joshi – AR
For Respondent: Shri Rohit Mujumdar for Srikanth – DR
Hearing: 20/09/2021Pronounced: 24/09/2021

This assessee’s appeal for AY. 2015-16 arises from the CIT(A)-3, Hyderabad’s order dated 07.06.2019 passed in case No.10325/DCIT-3(2)/Hyd/CIT(A)-3/2018-19 involving proceedings u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, ‘the Act’].

Heard both parties. Case file(s) perused.

2.

Coming to the assessee’s sole substantive grievance that both the lower authorities have erred in law and on facts in imposing sec 271(1)(b) penalty of Rs.10,000/- alleging non- cooperation during scrutiny, we note at the outset that with the 1

able assistance coming from the taxpayer as well as the Revenue side that the Assessing Officer had in fact framed sec 143(3) assessment only on 13.12.2017 making sec 36(1)(iii) interest, ESIPF and sec 14A r.w.r 8D disallowance (es) of Rs.2,25,96,530/-, Rs.60,15,206/- and Rs.72,54,845/-. Coupled with this, he had further added an amount of Rs.72,54,845/- as MAT adjustment u/s 115JB of the Act.

3.

Faced with this situation, learned departmental representative fails to rebut the clinching fact that the assessee appears to have filed all the relevant details during the scrutiny itself on the basis of which the AO had disallowed / added the foregoing sums as per the case file. We conclude in these facts and circumstances that both he learned lower authorities have erred in imposing the penalty alleging non-cooperation during scrutiny u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. The same is directed to be deleted therefore.

4.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(b)

All 2,912 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(b) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →