PURAN SINGH VERMA,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN

PDF · subscribers
ITA 74/DEL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun10 March 2023AY 2009-102 pages

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

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that since the primary addition giving rise to the penalty was deleted, the penalty itself could not sustain. Therefore, the appeal against the penalty was allowed.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against the CIT(A)'s order upholding a penalty. The quantum addition, which formed the basis for the penalty, had previously been deleted by a coordinate bench of the ITAT.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) could be sustained when the underlying addition giving rise to the penalty had been deleted. The assessee also raised grounds related to violation of natural justice and procedural aspects.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 153A(1)(a),Section 275(1)(a)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DEHRADUN BENCH ‘DB, DEHRADUN

Before: Sh. Saktijit DeyDr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Ms. Pallavi, CA
Hearing: 23.02.2023Pronounced: 10.03.2023

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

1.

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A)-IV, Kanpur dated 30.10.2018 for Assessment Year 2009-10.

2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. That the impugned appellate order passed by the Hon'ble CIT(A) is bad in law, being cryptic and laconic, and deserves to be set aside.

2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) has violated the principles of natural justice by not allowing the Appellant a reasonable opportunity of being heard and passing the order in haste inter alia because - 2.1. The provisions of section 275(1)(a) of the Act have not been appreciated which state that where the appeal is pending before the Hon'ble ITAT, the penalty proceedings should not be disposed of till the time specified under the said section.

2 Puran Singh Verma 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in upholding the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act inter alia because- 3.1. The Appellant had made full disclosure of all his income in the return filed in response to notice issued under section 153A(1)(a) of the Act. 3.2. The Appellant has neither concealed nor furnished any inaccurate particulars of his income. 3.3. The Appellant had fully co-operated during the assessment proceedings and the requisite details were duly submitted with the Ld. AO. 3.4. The Ld. CIT(A) had also violated the principles of natural justice by not allowing the appellant a reasonable opportunity of being heard and passing the order in haste.”

3.

In this case, the quantum addition stands deleted by the Co-ordinate bench of ITAT vide order dated 31.01.2023 in ITA No. 3401/Del/2015. Since, the quantum addition stands deleted, the appeal filed against the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) is hereby allowed.

4.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 10/03/2023.

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 →