SHRI GHASI RAM SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1029/JPR/2017Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 August 2019AY 2006-073 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that since the addition on which the penalty was imposed was deleted by the CIT(A) and no appeal was filed by the department against that deletion, the penalty had no basis. Therefore, the penalty was directed to be deleted.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against a penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for Assessment Year 2006-07. The penalty was related to an addition made on account of long-term capital gains.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether a penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) could sustain when the underlying addition giving rise to the penalty was 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, JAIPUR BENCHES (SMC

Before: SHRI RAMESH C SHARMAvk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 1029/JP/2017

For Appellant: Shri R.N. Sharma (Adv) jktLo dh vksj ls@
Hearing: 07/08/2019Pronounced: 08/08/2019

ORDER PER: R.C. SHARMA, A.M. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of ld.CIT(A)-3, Jaipur dated 17/10/2017 for the A.Y. 2006-07 in the matter of imposition of penalty U/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act).

2.

At the outset, the ld AR of the assessee placed on record the quantum order passed by the ld. CIT(A) wherein the addition with 2 ITA 1029/JP/2017 Ghasi Ram Sharma Vs ITO respect to which the penalty has been imposed, had been deleted by the ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 28/03/2019.

3.

I have considered the rival contentions and carefully gone through the orders of the authorities below and found that the addition of Rs. 21,00,634/- was made on account of long term capital gain. In the first round of appeal, the Tribunal have restored back the matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for deciding afresh on merits by providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the respective assessees. I found that after the matter was set aside by the Tribunal, the ld. CIT(A) vide its order dated 28/3/2019 deleted the said addition of Rs. 20,53,775/- after having a detailed observation at para 7.2 of his order. However, no appeal was filed by the department against the said order of the ld. CIT(A) in quantum appeal. The ld DR was specifically asked by the Bench to tell if any appeal has been filed by the department against the said order of the ld. CIT(A). The ld DR contended that no such appeal was filed in so far as tax effect was below the limit prescribed by the CDBT in circular No.3 of 2018 dated 11th July, 2018. Since the addition itself has been deleted, the penalty imposed with respect to said additions have no legs to stand. Accordingly, I direct the A.O. to delete the penalty so imposed U/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.

3 ITA 1029/JP/2017 Ghasi Ram Sharma Vs ITO 4. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 08th August, 2019

1.

Sd/- ¼jes'k lh 'kekZ½ (RAMESH C SHARMA) ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 08th August, 2019 *Ranjan आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू vihykFkhZ@The Appellant- Shri Ghasi Ram Sharma, Jaipur. 1. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- The ITO, Ward 7(2), Jaipur. 2. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT 3. vk;dj vk;qDr¼vihy½@The CIT(A) 4. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत 5. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File (ITA No. 1029/JP/2017) 6. vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,

सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेज. त्महपेजतंत

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 →