AMBUJA GINNING PRESSING & OIL CO. P. LTD.,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), BHAVNAGAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1850/AHD/2018Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 October 2020AY 2012-132 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the quantum addition, which formed the basis for the penalty, had been set aside by a co-ordinate bench for re-adjudication. Therefore, the penalty issue was also restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh decision.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was against a penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) for non-disclosure of additional income found during a survey. The penalty was based on excess stock noticed under Section 69B.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be sustained when the underlying quantum addition has been set aside for re-adjudication.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 69B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD “C” BENCH

Before: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Sakar Sharma, A.R
For Respondent: Shri L.P. Jain, Sr. D.R, Shri Sakar Sharma, A.R

Date of hearing : 09-09-2020 Date of pronouncement : 07-10-2020 आदेश/ORDER PER : AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:-

This assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2012-13, arises from order of the CIT(A)-6, Ahmedabad dated 06-07-2018, in proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”.

2.

The solitary ground of appeal of the assessee is filed against the order of ld. CIT(A) in confirming the action of Assessing Officer in levying penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of Rs. 17,92,000/- on account of non-disclosure of additional income for excess stock noticed in the course of survey action u/s. 69B of the Act.

Page No 2 Ambuja Ginning Pressing & Oil Co. P. Ltd. vs. ITO

3.

During the course of appellate proceedings before us, the ld. counsel has brought to our notice that the quantum addition on the basis of which the impugned penalty was levied had been adjudicated by the ITAT vide order dated 04-10-2018 and the addition on account of unaccounted income on the basis of which the penalty was levied was restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication. The ld. Departmental Representative was fair enough not to controvert these facts. Considering the above facts and the order of the Co-ordinate Bench of the ITAT vide which the quantum addition was set aside to the file of Assessing Officer for deciding the issue afresh , we restore this issue also to the file of Assessing Officer for deciding afresh on the basis of set aside proceedings on quantum addition.

4.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 07-10-2020 Sd/- Sd/- (RAJPAL YADAV) (AMARJIT SINGH) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ahmedabad : Dated 07/10/2020 आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. Concerned CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. Guard file.

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 →