SMT. ZABUBEN PRABHATBHAI DESAI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(4), AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 410/AHD/2019Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 September 2019AY 2007-083 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 allowed the assessee's appeals, directing the deletion of the penalty. This decision was based on a prior ruling by a Co-ordinate Bench that had quashed the entire assessment proceedings as void ab initio.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeals challenge the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) which was confirmed by the CIT(A). The original assessment involved additions to income from long-term capital gains and other sources.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be sustained when the underlying assessment proceedings have been quashed as void ab initio.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 274

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD “C” BENCH

Before: SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD & SHRI WASEEM AHMED)

For Appellant: Shri Sakar Sharma, AR

PER MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER

1.

These two appeals filed by the Assessee are directed against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-5, Ahmedabad dated 28.01.2019 arising out of Penalty order dated & 411/Ahd/2019 2 . A.Y. 2007-08 05.03.2018. Since issues and assessment years are common, therefore, for the sake of convenience, we would like to dispose of both the appeals by way of a common order.

2.

In both the appeal, assessee has challenged that the ld. CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in confirming the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) amounting to Rs. 31,25,210/-.

3.

Facts of the case are that appellants are individual deriving income from long term capital gains as well as income from other sources. Appellants furnished return of income on 25.03.2008 declaring total income of Rs. 70 and 60 respectively. Thereafter assessment u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 was completed on 31.03.2015 resulting into addition of Rs. 1,40,69,376/- and 1,40,69,436/- respectively. The ld. Assessing Officer also initiated penalty proceeding u/s. 271(1)(c) read with Section 274 of the Act.

4.

Thereafter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) he confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer and confirmed penalty.

5.

At the outset, ld. A.R. Shri Sakar Sharma filed an order of Co-ordinate Bench in Assessee’s own case wherein in quantum proceeding relief was granted by the Co-ordinate Bench and relevant Para of the Co-ordinate Bench order is reproduced:

Further that on the basis of the above discussion and observation we find the entire proceeding is void ab initio i.e. invalid from the very outset and therefore is liable to be quashed and hence the entire proceeding under section 148 of the Act as initiated by the revenue against the assessee is hereby quashed. Thus, assessee's appeal is allowed.

& 411/Ahd/2019 3 . A.Y. 2007-08

6. Since the preliminary part has been allowed in favour of the assessee rest of the grounds become academic and no order need be passed.

7. The issue involved in rest of the appeals is identical to that of the issue already been dealt with by us in for A.Y. 2007-08 and in the absence of any changed circumstances the same shall apply mutatis mutandis. Hence, the rest of the appeals preferred by the assessee are also allowed.

8.

In the combined result, all the assessee's appeals are allowed.

6.

Since relief has been granted by the Co-ordinate Bench in quantum proceeding to the assessee/ appellant, thus, there is no res integra. In view of the above, we allow the appeal of the assessee and direct A.O. to delete the penalty.

7.

In the result, appeals filed by the Assessees are allowed.

Order pronounced in Open Court on 11 - 09- 2019

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 →