THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1, SURAT vs. NEO STRUCTO CONSTRUCTION LTD., SURAT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2316/AHD/2011Status: DisposedITAT Surat24 December 2021AY 2006-073 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the tax effect involved in the appeal was less than the monetary limit of Rs. 50 lakh for filing appeals before the Tribunal as per CBDT Circular No. 19/2019. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the deletion of penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) for AY 2006-07. The penalty amount was Rs. 23,81,576/-.

What were the issues?

Whether the Revenue's appeal is maintainable before the ITAT considering the tax effect and CBDT circulars. The allowability of expenses claimed by the assessee was also a background issue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 37(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Assessee by None Revenue by Mrs.Anupma Singla,Sr-DR Date of hearing 27.12.2021 Date of pronouncement 27.12.2021 Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by Revenue is directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals)-1, Suratdated 20.06.2011, which in turn arises out of penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 17.03.2011for assessment year (AY) 2006-07. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “[1]. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A)-1, Surat has erred in deleting the penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act of Rs.23,81,576/- despite the fact that the expenses claimed by the assessee were not allowable under section 37(1) of the I.T. Act. However, assessee deliberately claimed the expenses with a conscious view to reduce the Income-Tax liability. Further, despite giving an opportunity, the assessee failed to offer an explanation for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.”

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 →