DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BHUBANESWAR vs. ARSS DEVELOPERS LIMITED, BHUBANESWAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 356/CTK/2024Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack23 September 2024AY 2014-153 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the pendency of the Revenue's appeal before the High Court on the quantum addition does not justify reviving the penalty proceedings. Since the quantum addition no longer exists, the CIT(A)'s order deleting the penalty requires no interference.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order deleting a penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c). The CIT(A) had deleted the penalty because the ITAT had previously deleted the quantum addition for the same assessment year. The Revenue argued that its appeal on the quantum addition was pending before the High Court.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be sustained when the underlying quantum addition has been deleted, despite a pending appeal on the quantum addition before the High Court.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,

Before: BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHANMANISH AGARWAL

For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT
Hearing: 23/9/202Pronounced: 23/9/20

Assessment Year : 2014-15 Deputy Deputy Commissioner Commissioner of of Vs. ARSS Developers Limited, ARSS Developers Limited, Income Income Tax, Tax, Aayakar Aayakar Plot No.38, Sector-A, Zone- Plot No.38, Sector Bhavan Annexe Building, 4th Bhavan Annexe Building, 4 D, D, Mancheswar Mancheswar Industrial Industrial floor, floor, Room Room No.410(b), No.410(b), Estate, Bhubaneswar Estate, Bhubaneswar Rajaswa Rajaswa Vihar, Vihar, Bhubaneswar PAN/GIR No. No.AABCI 6623 B (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT Sanjay Kumar, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 23/9/202 24 Date of Pronouncement : 23/9/20 024 O R D E R Per Bench This is an appeal filed by the revenue an appeal filed by the revenue against the orde against the order of the ld CIT(A), Bhubaneswar CIT(A), Bhubaneswar-2, dated 25.6.2024 in Appeal No.NFAC/2013 25.6.2024 in Appeal No.NFAC/2013- 14/10055461 deleting the penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act of 14/10055461 deleting the penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act of 14/10055461 deleting the penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act of Rs.3,08,11,278/- - for the assessment year 2014-15.

2.

Shri Sanjay Kumar, ld CIT DR Sanjay Kumar, ld CIT DR appeared for the revenue. appeared for the revenue. None represented on behalf of the assessee. However, an application for represented on behalf of the assessee. However, an application for represented on behalf of the assessee. However, an application for adjournment has been filed. Since, the matter can be decided in the adjournment has been filed. Since, the matter can be decided in the adjournment has been filed. Since, the matter can be decided in the P a g e 1 | 3 absence of the assessee, we reject the adjournment petition and proceed to dispose the appeal of the revenue.

3.

The revenue has raised the following grounds:

“1. The order of the ld CIT (A) is erroneous both on the facts and in law. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld CIT(A) is justified in not considering the fact that the department has filed an appeal before the Hon’ble High court, Orissa in against the impugned quantum of addition in the assessee’s case for the A.T. 2014015 and the same is pending for adjudication.”

4.

A perusal of the order of the ld CIT(A) shows that the ld CIT(A) has deleted the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the ground that ITAT vide its order dated 23.12.2021 in assessee’s case for the assessment year 2014-15 has deleted the quantum addition. Pendency of the revenue’s appeal before the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the quantum addition does not give ground for reviving the penalty proceedings. This being so, as the quantum addition no more exists, we are of the view that the order of the ld CIT(A) does not call for any interference.

5.

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed.

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 →