M/S SHRI KALYANIKA INFRA,JABALPUR vs. D.C.I.T., JABALPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 24/JAB/2021Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur30 November 2023AY 2014-20152 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the quantum addition, which formed the basis for the penalty, had already been deleted in the assessee's own case by a previous Tribunal order. Consequently, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) no longer survived.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The penalty was confirmed by the CIT(A). The assessee raised several grounds challenging the legality and validity of the penalty.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) could survive when the underlying addition was deleted. The Tribunal also considered the legality of the penalty levy and the AO's clarity on the limb of the section invoked.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show 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.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JABALPUR BENCH ‘DB’, JABALPUR

Before: Dr. B. R. R. KumarSh. Yogesh Kumar US

Hearing: 29.11.2023Pronounced: 30.11.2023

ORDER

Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member:

1.

The present appeal has been filed by assessee against the order of ld. CIT(A)-3, Bhopal dated 12.07.2021.

2. The assesse has raised the following grounds of appeal are as under:-

1. The Ld CIT(A) has erred in confirming the penalty levied by Ld AO u/s 271(1)(c).

2. The levy of penalty is illegal for various reasons, which inter alia includes the reason that the LAO was not clear as to for which limb of section 271(1)(c) the penalty was being levied that is whether it was for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or for concealment of income etc.

3. The Ld. CIT(A) was not justified and had no authority to ignore binding decision of Hon'ble MP HC in the case of PCIT Vs. Kulwant singh Bhatia 304 CTR 103. The Id. CIT(A) was incompetent to ignore this decision.

4. The penalty order is null and void as the LAO has not discharged his initial burden of showing whether the assessee had concealed particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income as held by Hon'ble MP HC and upheld by Hon'ble SC in the case of sureshchand mittal 251 ITR 9.

2 Shri Kalyanika Infra Megaventures P. Ltd., 5. The Id. CIT(A) willfully ignored binding decision of jurisdictional HC as above. Hence the appellant should be awarded cost and should be held as guilty of willful contempt of court as he has caused hardship on the assessee by passing illegal order.

6.

The penalty is also illegal for the reason that the Id. JCIT approved the penalty without application of mind.

7.

The penalty is also illegal on the ground that the assessment order itself is null and void as it should have been made u/s 153C and not u/s 143(3).

8.

The penalty is also illegal on the ground that there is no merit in levying penalty as there are two views possible on the nature of additions made.

2.

At the outset, it was brought to our notice that the quantum addition made by the Assessing Officer stands deleted by the order of the Tribunal in the assessee’s own case in order dated 23.11.2023.

3.

Hence, we hold that the penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) do not survive.

4.

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 30/11/2023.

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 →