THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(5), DEHRADUN vs. UTTRAKHAND POORV SAINIK KALYAN INGAM LIMITED, DEHRADUN

PDF · subscribers
ITA 17/DDN/2020Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun22 September 2023AY 2014-20152 pages

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

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that since the quantum appeal was quashed, the penalty levied for that assessment year would not survive. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s deletion of penalty under Section 271(1)(c). The assessee argued that the quantum appeal for the assessment year had been quashed as void-ab-initio.

What were the issues?

Whether a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can survive if the underlying quantum appeal is quashed as void-ab-initio.

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, DEHRADUN BENCH, ‘DB’: DEHRADUN

Before: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA & SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA

For Respondent: Smt. Poonam Sharma, Add. CIT
Hearing: 22.09.2023Pronounced: 22.09.2023

ORDER PER SHAMIM YAHYA, AM,

This appeal by the Revenue is against the order of the Ld. CIT(A), Dehradun, dated 27.01.2020 and pertains to Assessment Year 2014-15.

2.

The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee reads as under:-

“1. The Ld. CITA has erred in law and on facts of the case in deleting the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961, held to be unwarranted and unsustainable. 2. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) be set-aside being erroneous in law and the order of the Assessing Officer be restore.” 3. At the outset in this case, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the quantum appeal in this case has already been quashed as void-ab- initio vide order dated 23.06.2023 in ITA No.3129/Del/2018. Hence, he submitted that the penalty does not survive.

4.

The Ld. DR could not controvert the submission of the assessee.

5.

Accordingly, since, the Tribunal has already quashed the proceeding as void ab initio, the penalty for the year in this case does not survive. Hence, the Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed.

6.

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 22nd September, 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 →