SHRI UTPAL RAJENDRA BAROT,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(5), AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2509/AHD/2017Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 July 2019AY 2009-102 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

Since the original addition (quantum appeal) was deleted, the penalty proceedings became infructuous. Therefore, the appeal against the penalty was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was against a penalty levied under section 271(1)(c). The quantum appeal related to the same assessment year had already been deleted by a co-ordinate bench.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can survive if the underlying addition is deleted.

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, “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: SHRI WASEEM AHMED&

For Appellant: Shri D. K. Parikh, A.R, Shri Shiv Sevak, Sr. D.R
Hearing: 15/07/2019Pronounced: 23/07/2019

The instant appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 11.09.2017 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 7, Ahmedabad whereby and whereunder the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as to “the Act”) dated 30.03.2016 for Assessment Year 2009-10 by the ITO, Ward-3(3)(5), Ahmedabad has been confirmed.

2.

At the time of hearing of the instant appeal the Learned Counsel appearing for the assessee submitted before us that the quantum appeal arising out of the assessment order dated 28.03.2013 has been deleted by the Co-ordinate Bench in appeal preferred by the assessee being for A.Y. 2009-10 by order dated 08.08.2018 copy whereof has also been submitted before us. Since the quantum addition has been deleted by the Co-ordinate Bench, the penalty proceedings itself become infructuous as - 2 - Utpal Rajendra Borat vs. ITO Asst.Year–2009-10 submitted by the Learned AR. The Learned DR, however, has not made any serious objection to the admitted position of the matter as contended by the Learned AR.

3.

Heard the respective parties, perused the relevant materials available on record. We have also perused the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench in ITA No.843/Ahd/2013.We find since the quantum has been deleted the penalty as become infructuous and hence this appeal is dismissed as infructuous.

4.

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed as infructuous. This Order pronounced in Open Court on 23/07/2019

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 →