SHRI VIMAL RAMNIKLAL AMBANI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE CIT (A)-8, AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 441/AHD/2018Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 October 2019AY 2012-133 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 noted that the enhanced additions on which the penalty was levied had been deleted by a previous Tribunal order. Therefore, the penalty could not survive.

What were the facts?

The CIT(A) imposed penalty on enhanced income additions made during appellate proceedings. The assessee appealed this penalty order.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be imposed when the underlying addition giving rise to the penalty has been deleted.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: SHRI KUL BHARAT & SHRI WASEEM AHMED

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Jani & Samir S. Jani, A.R
For Respondent: Shri Satish Solanki, Sr. D.R
Hearing: 01/10/2019Pronounced: 01/10/2019

PER SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER :

1.

This appeal by the Assessee pertaining to the Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13 is directed against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) - 8, Ahmedabad (‘CIT(A)’ for short) dated 23.01.2018. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:-

1. The learned CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts by passing an order u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act and imposing penalty of tax evaded on income enhanced.

2.

The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by imposing penalty on the travelling expenses disallowed during appellate proceedings to the extent of - 2 - Vimal Ramniklal Ambani vs. CIT(A) Asst.Year – 2012-13 Rs.2,20,870/-. He has also erred in law by ignoring the principles laid down by the Apex Court in case of Reliance Petroproducts - 322 ITR 158 SC that that mere rejection of legal claim would not amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) can be imposed.

3.

The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, edit, delete, modify or change all or any of the grounds of appeal at the time of or before the hearing of appeal.”

2. Briefly stated facts are that Learned CIT(A) while deciding the appeal in quantum proceeding, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was enhanced accordingly the Learned CIT(A) initiated penalty proceedings and imposed penalty on the enhanced addition of income. Aggrieved against the penalty order, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.

3. At the outset, the Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the enhancement made by the Learned CIT(A) has been deleted by this Tribunal in ITA Nos. 2499-2500/Ahd/2017. The Learned Counsel for the assessee has taken us through the order of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case in ITA No. 2499/Ahd/2017. It is the fact that the addition was enhanced, was made in the quantum proceeding before the Learned CIT(A) in respect of computation of disallowance under Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (hereinafter referred as to ‘the Rule’) by invoking provisions of section 14A of the Act.

4.

We have heard the rival submissions, perused the materials available on records and gone through the orders of the authorities below. During the course of hearing the Learned DR fairly conceded that the addition on which the impugned penalty is levied has been deleted. Since, the addition has been deleted by the Tribunal. The penalty on the - 3 - Vimal Ramniklal Ambani vs. CIT(A) Asst.Year – 2012-13 same is not survived. We, therefore, direct the Learned Assessing Officer to delete the penalty. Ground raised in this appeal by the assessee is allowed.

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 →