SHRI DEVIDAS HARILAL PASIAWALA,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(1), SURAT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1257/AHD/2017Status: DisposedITAT Surat07 February 2020AY 2008-093 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that since the quantum addition was deleted by the ITAT, the penalty proceedings arising from those additions do not survive. Therefore, the penalty imposed was not sustainable.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was against the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c). The assessee argued that the penalty proceedings were infructuous as the quantum addition, which was the basis for the penalty, had already been deleted by the ITAT in a previous appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be sustained when the underlying addition has been deleted by the appellate authority.

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, SURAT BENCH, SURAT

Before: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, Honble & SHRI O.P.MEENA, Honble

For Respondent: Shri Sreenivas T.Bidari – CIT-DR
Hearing: 04.02.2020

सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date of hearing: 04.02.2020 उ�घोषणाक�तार�ख/Pronouncement on: 07.02.2020 आदेश /O R D E R

PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM:

1.

This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the order of Ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-2, Surat dated 03.04.2017 for the assessment year 2008-09.

2.

Grounds raised

by the Assessee read as under: “1 On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of assessing officer in levying penalty of Rs.4,22,271/- u/s.271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act, 1961.

2. It is therefore prayed that the above penalty levied by the assessing officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) may please be deleted.

3. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of hearing of the appeal.”

Page 2 of 3 Shri Devidas Harilal Pasiawala Vs. ITO, Ward-1(2)(1), Surat /

3.

Brief facts of the case are that the ld.Authorised Representative of the assessee pointed out before us that the addition have already been deleted by Hon'ble ITAT in for A.Y. 2008-09 in assessee’s own case. He further submitted that since the quantum addition was deleted by the Hon'ble ITAT, the present penalty proceedings become infructuous, therefore imposition upheld by the ld.CIT(A) may be dismissed.

4.

Per contra, the ld.Senior Departmental Representative did not oppose the findings placed by ld.AR.

5.

We have heard Counsels for both the parties and we have also perused the records and noticed that as in the main appeal, the Hon'ble ITAT has already been dismissed the quantum addition in assessee’s own case, thus, this imposition of penalty proceedings arriving out of those additions do not survive, accordingly, this appeal of the Assessee accepted and penalty also stands deleted.

6.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is Allowed.

7.

Order pronounced in the open court on 07-02-2020.

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 →