KAILASAM PILLAI SARAVANAN,TRICHY vs. ITO, WARD - 1, TRICHY

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1021/CHNY/2022Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 July 2023AY 2017-20182 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the quantum addition appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Therefore, the consequential penalty appeal was also restored to the same authority for a fresh decision.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal concerned a penalty under Section 271AAC(1). An ex-parte assessment was made, with additions under Section 69A for cash deposits. The penalty was confirmed by the first appellate authority.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty under Section 271AAC(1) is sustainable when the underlying quantum addition appeal has been restored for fresh adjudication.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271AAC(1),Section 144,Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VP & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM

O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. The sole grievance of the assessee in the captioned appeal is confirmation of penalty u/s. 271AAC(1) for Rs.3.62 Lacs. At the time of hearing, none appeared for assessee and accordingly, the appeal was proceeded for disposal with the able assistance of Ld. Sr. DR.

2.

From case records, it emerges that an ex-parte assessment was framed against the assessee u/s. 144 on 25.11.2019 wherein certain additions were made u/s.69A on account of cash deposit made in the bank account of the assessee. Against quantum addition, Ld. AO levied impugned penalty which was confirmed by first appellate authority. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us.

3.

We find that the assessee has assailed the quantum addition with this Tribunal vide order dated 26.08.2022 wherein the appeal has been restored back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Considering the same, this appeal having consequential penalty is also restored back to the same authority to decide the same afresh in terms of quantum order.

4.

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 24th July, 2023 Sd/- Sd/- (MAHAVIR SINGH) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) उपा ! / VICE PRESIDENT लेखा सद) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER चे3ई Chennai; िदनांक Dated : 24-07-2023 DS आदेशकीFितिलिपअ&ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant 2. � थ�/Respondent 3. आयकरआयु</CIT 4. िवभागीय �ितिनिध/DR 5. गाडA फाईल/GF

More judgments on Section 271AAC(1)

All 1,211 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271AAC(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →