VITTHAL MANIK DHAWALE,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -8, PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1552/PUN/2017Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 November 2020AY 2009-102 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the quantum appeal was restored to the Assessing Officer. Therefore, penalty orders should be passed after giving effect to the Tribunal's order in the quantum appeal, as per Section 275(1)(A).

What were the facts?

The assessee filed appeals against penalty orders under section 271(1)(c) for AYs 2009-10 and 2010-11. These penalty orders were passed before the Tribunal's decision in the quantum appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty orders passed prior to the Tribunal's decision in the quantum appeal are valid. The applicability of Section 275(1)(A) for passing penalty orders.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

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

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, PUNE

Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM & SHRI S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P. Bora
Hearing: 05.11.2020Pronounced: 05.11.2020

PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM: These are the appeals filed by the assessee directed against the common order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-9, Pune (‘CIT(A)’ for short) dated 31.03.2017 for the Assessment Years 2009-10 and 2010-11 confirming levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ for short).

2.

Before us, it was submitted that the Tribunal in the quantum appeal vide ITA Nos.978 & 979/PUN/2014 for the assessment years 2009-10 & 2010-11, order dated 05.04.2018 restored the issue of addition to the file of the Assessing Officer. It appears that the impugned orders were passed before passing the orders in quantum appeal by the Tribunal. Therefore, the provisions of section 275(1)(A) of the Act to pass the penalty orders on the basis of order giving effect to the Tribunal’s order in quantum appeal.

3.

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 05th day of November, 2020. (S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) (INTURI RAMA RAO) "याियक सद"य/JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद"य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; "दनांक / Dated : 05th November, 2020. Sujeet आदेश क" "ितिलिप अ"ेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ" / The Appellant.

1.

""यथ" / The Respondent.

2.3.

The CIT(A)-9, Pune.

4.

The Pr. CIT-5, Pune. िवभागीय "ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “ए” ब"च, 5. पुणे / DR, ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune. गाड" फ़ाइल / Guard File. 6. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, //// Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.

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 →