GAMPA MALLESHAM,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1), HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1851/HYD/2017Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 January 2020AY 2008-093 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the outcome of the quantum appeal would impact the penalty appeal. Since the quantum appeal was remitted back, the penalty appeal was also remitted back to the CIT(A) for a decision based on merit and law.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the penalty order under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The quantum appeal related to the same assessment year had been set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) is valid when the related quantum addition is subject to fresh adjudication. The validity of the penalty notice was also questioned.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCH “B-SMC”, HYDERABAD

Before: SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY

For Appellant: Smt. Sandhya
Hearing: 21/11/2019Pronounced: 22/01/2020

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH “B-SMC”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2008-09 Gampa Mallesham, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward-4(1), PAN: ACAPG 1850 C Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Smt. Sandhya Revenue by: Sri Nilanjan Dey, DR Date of hearing: 21/11/2019 Date of pronouncement: 22/01/2020 ORDER

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-1, Hyderabad in appeal No.0477/CIT(A)-1/Hyd/2014-15/2017- 18, dated 03/07/2017 passed U/s. 271(1)(c) r.w.s 250(6) of the Act for the A.Y. 2008-09.

2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds in his appeal:

“1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous both on facts and in law.

2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without providing further opportunity.

3.

The initiation of proceedings U/s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act is not valid as the Assessing Officer did not strike off the inappropriate portion of the notice. The A.O. ought to have struck off the inappropriate portion and indicated appellant the applicable portion in the notice.

4. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the A.O. in holding that the appellant concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of his income and further erred in confirming levy of penalty U/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act of Rs. 2,49,085/-.

5. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered the fact that the addition made was U/s. 68 of the Act disbelieving the letters of confirmation provided by the creditors.

6.

Any other ground that may be urged at the time of hearing.”

3. At the outset, the Ld. AR submitted before us that the quantum appeal in the case of the assessee is set aside to the file of ld. CIT (A) by the Tribunal and this being penalty appeal related to the quantum appeal may also be set aside to the file of Ld. CIT (A). The Ld. DR could not controvert to the submission of the ld. AR.

4.

I have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the materials on record. It is obvious that the outcome of the quantum appeal will have bearing while deciding the issue relating to the levy of penalty. The fact that the quantum appeal in the case of the assessee for the relevant assessment year is remitted back to the file of the Ld. CIT (A) for fresh adjudication is not disputed. Therefore, I hereby remit this relevant penalty appeal also back to the file of Ld. CIT (A) with directions to decide the matter in accordance with merit and law considering the decision rendered in the relevant quantum appeal.

5.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove.

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 →