A.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 550/KOL/2022Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 February 2023AY 2014-20153 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that the penalty had no basis once the underlying additions were removed. The Revenue's appeal challenging the deletion of penalty was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer levied penalty under Section 271(1)(c) based on quantum additions. The CIT(A) deleted this penalty because the quantum additions themselves had been deleted by the Tribunal in a prior order.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can survive if the quantum additions forming its basis are deleted by a higher authority.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH KOLKATA

Before: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

order : February 21, 2023 आदेश / ORDER संजय गग�, �या�यक सद�य �वारा / Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member: The captioned are the appeals have been preferred by the Revenue and corresponding cross-objections by the assessee against the separate & C.O No.22&23/Kol/2022 Assessment years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Deepak Kumar Agarwal orders both dated 29.07.2022 of the Commissioner of Income Tax-21, Kolkata [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’).

2.

The department, in this appeal, has contested the action of the CIT(A) in deleting the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.

3.

The ld. CIT(A) has deleted the penalty observing that since the quantum additions made by the Assessing Officer, which was the very basis for the levy of penalty, stood deleted by the Tribunal vide order dated 10.05.2019 passed in ITA No.s125&126/Kol/2018, therefore, the corresponding penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act had become infructuous.

4.

Now, the Department has come in appeal pleading that the Department has filed some SLP in some another case before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, wherein, the identical issues relating to the quantum additions as in the case of the assessee is involved. May it be so, however the fact on file is that the quantum additions, on the basis of which the impugned penalty was levied by the Assessing Officer, stood deleted by the Tribunal and therefore, the impugned penalty has no legs to stand. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) and the same is upheld.

5.

So far as the cross-objections filed by the assessee are concerned, the assessee has not put any grievance against the order of the CIT(A). &550/Kol/2022 & C.O No.22&23/Kol/2022 Assessment years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Deepak Kumar Agarwal

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 →