RAJIV NARESH GODIAWALA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 893/MUM/2023Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 June 2023AY 2011-122 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings should be decided afresh by the CIT(A) after the quantum appeal is decided. The impugned penalty was accordingly set aside.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against a penalty order under Section 271(1)(C). The quantum appeal, on which the penalty was based, had been set aside by the Tribunal for fresh adjudication.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be sustained when the underlying addition is subject to fresh adjudication in the quantum appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘D‘ BENCH

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Rambhiya
For Respondent: Smt. Riddhi Mishra
Hearing: 08/06/2023Pronounced: 28/06/2023

आदेश / O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA (J.M): The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 23/02/2023 passed by NFAC, Delhi in relation to the penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(C) for the A.Y.2011-12.

2.

It has been stated before us that in the quantum appeal, the entire addition on which penalty has been set aside to the file of the CIT(A) by the Tribunal vide order dated 30/05/2022

1.

Shri Rajiv Naresh Gadiawala in for deciding the issue afresh. Accordingly, the impugned penalty levied by the ld. AO and also confirmed by the ld. CIT (A) is set aside to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to be decided afresh after deciding the quantum appeal and in accordance with law.

3.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on 28th June, 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 →