SHRI SHAILESHBHAI KANTILAL PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE 6(1), AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1006/AHD/2018Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 March 2020AY 2007-082 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that since the quantum additions were set aside, the consequential penalty also needs to be adjudicated afresh by the Assessing Officer in light of the fresh quantum assessment.

What were the facts?

The assessee contested a penalty of Rs. 9.54 Lacs levied under Section 271(1)(c) for AY 2007-08. The penalty was confirmed by the first appellate authority. However, the quantum additions on which the penalty was based were already set aside by the Tribunal for fresh adjudication.

What were the issues?

Whether a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be sustained when the underlying quantum additions have been set aside for fresh adjudication.

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: HON’BLE HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM

For Appellant: Shri Pritesh Shah-Ld. AR
For Respondent: DR Revenue by

आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member)

1.

In the present appeal, the assessee is contesting levy of penalty of In the present appeal, the assessee is contesting levy of penalty of In the present appeal, the assessee is contesting levy of penalty of Rs.9.54 Lacs u/s 271(1)(c) for AY 2007 Rs.9.54 Lacs u/s 271(1)(c) for AY 2007-08 as confirmed by Ld. first 08 as confirmed by Ld. first appellate authority vide impugned order dated appellate authority vide impugned order dated 19/03/2018 which is an 19/03/2018 which is an ex-parte order. It is an admitted position that quantum additions against admitted position that quantum additions against admitted position that quantum additions against which the penalty has been levied has which the penalty has been levied has already been set been set-aside by the Tribunal to the file of Ld. AO for fresh adjudication vide ITA Tribunal to the file of Ld. AO for fresh adjudication vide ITA Tribunal to the file of Ld. AO for fresh adjudication vide ITA

Shaileshbhai Kantilal Patel Shaileshbhai Kantilal Patel Assessment Year : 2007-08 Assessment Year : 2007 No.586/Ahd/2016 order dated 20/12/2019. A copy of the same is on No.586/Ahd/2016 order dated 20/12/2019. A copy of the same is on No.586/Ahd/2016 order dated 20/12/2019. A copy of the same is on record. In view of the same, since the matter of quantum has already view of the same, since the matter of quantum has already view of the same, since the matter of quantum has already been set-aside by the co aside by the co-ordinate bench, the matter of consequential ordinate bench, the matter of consequential penalty also stands remitted back to the file of Ld.AO for fresh penalty also stands remitted back to the file of Ld.AO for fresh penalty also stands remitted back to the file of Ld.AO for fresh adjudication in the light of fresh quantum assessment. adjudication in the light of fresh quantum assessment.

2.

Resultantly, the appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes. tantly, the appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes. tantly, the appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on onounced in the open court on 04/03/2020 /03/2020

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 →