M/S. LAVENDER BUILDCON PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), AHMEDABAD
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that since the quantum additions/disallowances, which formed the basis for the penalty, were reversed by a co-ordinate bench in quantum proceedings, the penalty could not survive.
What were the facts?
The assessee challenged a penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The penalty was based on quantum additions/disallowances made by the Assessing Officer.
What were the issues?
Whether a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be sustained when the underlying additions/disallowances giving rise to the penalty have been deleted in quantum appeal.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA & SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD
The captioned appeal has been filed at the instance of the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Ahmedabad (‘CIT(A)’ in short), dated 22.12.2017 arising in the penalty order dated 15.03.2016 passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; (the Act) concerning assessment year 2010- 11.
[M/s. Lavender Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT] A.Y. 2010-11 - 2 - 2. The assessee by way of its grounds of appeal has challenged the action of the CIT(A) in confirming the penalty under s. 271(1)(c) of the Act.
3. When the matter was called for hearing, the learned AR for the assessee submitted that the quantum additions/disallowances giving rise to the imposition of penalty in appeal has been reversed by the co-ordinate bench of Tribunal in order dated 24.06.2019 in the quantum proceedings.
4. In view of the fact that the quantum additions/disallowances itself does not survive and ceases to exist having regard to the appellate order of the ITAT in quantum proceedings, the very basis for imposition of penalty under s. 271(1)(c) does not survive any more. Therefore, the action of the AO towards imposing penalty is set aside and cancelled.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
This Order pronounced in Open Court on 03/09/2019
Sd/- Sd/- (MAHAVIR PRASAD) (PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ahmedabad: Dated 03/09/2019 True Copy S. K. SINHA आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. राज�व / Revenue 2. आवेदक / Assessee 3. संबं�धत आयकर आयु�त / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु�त- अपील / CIT (A) 5. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाड� फाइल / Guard file. By order/आदेश से,
उप/सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, अहमदाबाद ।
More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
- Shalin Jayantbhai Desai, Vadodara vs ACIT, Circle-4(2), Vadodara Present…ITA 2569/AHD/2026[2010-11]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2010-11
- Neo Structo Construction P. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs The Pr. CIT- 3, AhmedabadITA 1216/AHD/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2370/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2369/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Barnala Steel Industries Private Limited vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 OthersAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- Skd Suppliers Private Limited vs. The Superintendent, Central CGST, Rishra Division, Range-Ii, And AnrCalcutta · 22 Oct 2026
- M/S Aasha Industries vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- M/S Bharat Iron Scrap vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- Mascot Constructions Co. And Another vs. The Commissioner Of Goods And Services Tax (GST) And AnotherBombay · 22 Oct 2026