RITHWIK PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT TDS, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 165/HYD/2021Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 September 2021AY 2017-184 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal followed a coordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case for earlier years. It restored the issue back to the Assessing Officer for fresh factual verification as per law.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against a penalty imposed under Section 221(1) of the Income Tax Act for AY 2017-18. The penalty was based on TRACES processing, and the assessee claimed the corresponding demands no longer survived after reconciliation.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty imposed under Section 221(1) is sustainable when the underlying demand has been reconciled and no longer survives.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 221(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCHES “B”: HYDERABAD

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao
For Respondent: Shri Rohit Mujumdar
Hearing: 01/09/2021Pronounced: 06/09/2021

O R D E R PER L.P. SAHU, A.M.: This appeal filed by the Assessee is directed against CIT(A) - 12, Hyderabad’s order dated 15/02/2021 for AY 2017-18 involving proceedings u/s 221(1) of the Income- Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”.

2.

The assessee has raised 10 grounds of appeal, the sum and substance of which is imposing penalty u/s 221(1) of the Act of Rs. 11,209/-.

:- 2 -: M/s Rithwik Projects Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad.

3.

Before us, the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the issue in dispute is squarely covered by the decision of the coordinate bench of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case for earlier AYs vide to 1335/Hyd/2018, order dated 11/01/2021, wherein the coordinate bench has held as under: 2. The assessee’s sole substantive grievance raised in all these six appeals seeks to reverse both the lower authorities’ action imposing u/s.221(1) penalty (i.e.,) Rs.8501/-, Rs.1,13,277/-, Rs.12,88,947/-, Rs.10,06,998/- , Rs.7,39,032/- and Rs.4,06,599/-; assessment year wise, respectively. 3. Learned counsel’s sole argument during the course of hearing is that the impugned penalties are based on ‘TRACES’ processing and the corresponding demands no longer survive as per assessee’s reconciliation filed on record dt.31-12-2020. The Revenue’s case on the other hand is that the instant issue to this effect requires Assessing Officer’s factual verification. We deem it appropriate in these peculiar facts to restore the assessee’s identical sole substantive grievance back to the Assessing Officer for his afresh factual verification as per law within three effective opportunities of hearing.

4.

These assessee’s appeals are treated as allowed for statistical purposes in above terms.” 4. The ld. DR, on the other hand neither controverted the submission of the assessee nor brought any contrary decision in this regard.

:- 3 -: M/s Rithwik Projects Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad. 5. Since the issue in dispute is materially identical to that of the decision of the coordinate bench in assessee’s own case for earlier AYs (supra), respectfully following the same, we remit the issue back to the file of the AO with a direction to decide the issue in line with the order of the coordinate bench cited supra. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee on this issue are allowed for statistical purposes.

6.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes in above terms. Pronounced in the open court on 6th September, 2021.

More judgments on Section 221(1)

All 159 judgments and leading authorities on Section 221(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →