LATE SHRI SAJID R. DHANANI,INDORE vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), VADODARA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The tribunal held that since the assessment orders were quashed, the penalty proceedings initiated against the assessee became infructuous. Consequently, the appeals related to the penalty were dismissed.
What were the facts?
The assessee's quantum appeals, which formed the basis for penalty proceedings, were allowed in favor of the assessee. The assessment orders under section 153A were quashed.
What were the issues?
Whether penalty proceedings are sustainable when the underlying assessment order is quashed. The infructuous nature of penalty appeals due to the quashing of assessment orders.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: SHRI WASEEM AHMED&
Heard together (2 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
PER Ms. MADHUMITA ROY - JM: Both the appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Ahmedabad both dated 28.04.2017 under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as to “the Act”) arising out of the order dated 29.12.2015 and 24.11.2015 passed by the ACIT, Circle-1(1)(2), Baroda for the Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2011-12.
Since both the appeals relate to the same assessee, the same are heard analogously and are being disposed of by a common order.
& Late Shri Sajid R. Dhanani vs. ACIT Asst.Years –2010-11 & 2011-12 - 2 -
It appears that in the quantum appeals arising out of the assessment order dated 31.03.2013 u/s 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act passed by the ACIT, Circle – 1(1)(2), Baroda, have been allowed in favour of the assessee by quashing the said assessment order u/s 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act. Hence, the penalty proceedings initiated against the assessee become infructuous. The appeals are also thus dismissed as infructuous.
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 →- Mascot Constructions Co. And Another vs. The Commissioner Of Goods And Services Tax (GST) And AnotherBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Fasil Hussain Shah vs. Ut Of J And K Th Commissioner Secretary TO Government Finance Department And OthersJammu and Kashmir and Ladakh · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S. Devkinandan Traders vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Dixit Medical Agencies vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026