KIRITKUMAR HIMATLAL DHOLKIA,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-5(1)(5), AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2186/AHD/2017Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 July 2019AY 2010-112 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 substantive additions/disallowances forming the basis of the penalty were set aside, the penalty itself could not survive. Therefore, the penalty order was also set aside.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against a penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The penalty was based on additions/disallowances made by the Assessing Officer. However, the quantum additions themselves were set aside by a co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal.

What were the issues?

Whether a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be sustained when the underlying additions/disallowances have been set aside.

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, “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA

For Appellant: Shri K. C. Thaker, A.R, Shri Rajesh Meena, Sr.D.R

The captioned appeal has been filed at the instance of the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Ahmedabad (‘CIT(A)’ in short), dated 14.07.2017 arising in the penalty order dated 09.03.2016 passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) concerning AY 2010-11.

2.

As per the grounds of appeal, the assessee has impugned the imposition of penalty under s. 271(1)(c) of the Act amounting to Rs.8,45,000/-.

ITA No.2186/Ahd/17 [Kiritkumar H. Dholakia Vs. ITO] A.Y. 2010-11 - 2 - 3. When the matter was called for hearing, the learned AR for the assessee submitted that the co-ordinate bench of Tribunal in order dated 14.02.2018 in quantum proceedings had set aside the substantive dispute to the file of the CIT(A).

4.

In view of the fact that the quantum additions/disallowances itself has been set aside to the file of CIT(A), the very basis for imposition of penalty under s. 271(1)(c) does not survive at present. Therefore, the action of the CIT(A) towards sustaining penalty is also set aside and restored back to the file of CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in the light of quantum appeal and in accordance with law.

5.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

This Order pronounced in Open Court on 31/07/2019

Sd/- Sd/- (RAJPAL YADAV) (PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ahmedabad: Dated 31/07/2019 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)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →