SARA TEXTILES LTD.,NOIDA vs. DCIT CIRCLE-7(1), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 8441/DEL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 September 2022AY 2011-122 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that since the quantum proceedings were restored, the penalty proceedings should also be restored back to the Assessing Officer. The impugned penalty order was set aside.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against a penalty order. The quantum proceedings related to the same assessment year had been restored back to the Assessing Officer by the Tribunal for fresh adjudication.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty proceedings can continue when the underlying quantum assessment is restored for fresh adjudication. The impact of restoration of quantum proceedings on the validity of a penalty order.

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, DELHI BENCH “G” DELHI

Before: SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, Adv
For Respondent: Ms. Kajal Singh, Sr.DR

The captioned appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-VIII, New Delhi dated 02.05.2019 arising from the penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 23.03.2018 concerning Assessment Year 2011-12. The assessee is mainly aggrieved by levy of penalty of Rs.4,96,693/-.

2.

The ld. counsel pointed out that there is a delay of 73 days in filing appeal for which the petition for condonation of delay has been filed along with the affidavit having regard to the smallness of the delay and no prejudice perceived to have caused against the Revenue, the delay is condoned.

3. The ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that in the quantum proceedings, the Tribunal vide order dated 23.08.2021 in ITA No.3270/Del/2016 has restored the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer for adjudication on merits and consequently, the imposition of penalty is dependent upon the outcome of quantum proceedings pending before CIT(A).

3.

The Learned Department Representative endorsed that the quantum proceedings has been restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

4.

After considering the aforesaid submissions, we find that in the quantum proceedings, the Tribunal has restored the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer. Consequently, the impugned dispute challenging imposition of penalty should also be restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer. The impugned penalty order is thus set aside.

5.

The Assessing Officer shall be at liberty to pass a fresh order for imposition of penalty, if considered expedient, in accordance with law having regard to the findings of quantum proceedings after taking into account the position of law and facts in the light of decision rendered in quantum proceedings.

6.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 22/09/2022.

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 →