THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(3), AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI NARENDRASINGH L. RATHOD, AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 604/AHD/2016Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 June 2019AY 2008-093 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the penalty issue to the file of the learned CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Both the assessee and revenue did not object to this course of action.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed the deletion of penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) for disallowance of MCX loss and interest income. The ITAT had previously restored the quantum disallowance issue to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be sustained when the quantum addition on which it was based was restored for fresh adjudication. The appropriateness of deleting the penalty in light of the pending quantum assessment.

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

Hearing: 19/06/2019Pronounced: 19/06/2019

आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, अहमदाबाद �यायपीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘’A’’ BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE, SHRI A.D. JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT And SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.604/AHD/2016 �नधा�रण वष�/Asstt. Year: 2008-2009

D.C.I.T, Shri Narendrasingh L. Rathod, Circle-1(3), Vs. 116/3, Sunil Bhavan, Ahmedabad. M.G. Haveli Road, Manekchok, Ahmedabad-380001. PAN: ADXPR1249L

(Applicant) (Respondent) Revenue by : Shri B.P. Shrivastava, Sr. D.R Assessee by : Shri S.N. Divatia, A.R सुनवाई क� तार�ख/Date of Hearing : 19/06/2019 घोषणा क� तार�ख /Date of Pronouncement: 19/06/2019 आदेश/O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

The captioned appeal has been filed at the instance of the Revenue against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Ahmedabad[Ld.CIT(A) in short], dated 01/01/2016 arising in the matter of assessment order passed under s. 143 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (here-in- after referred to as "the Act") dated 27/12/2010 relevant to Assessment Year (AY) 2008-09.

Page 1 of 3

ITA no.604/AHD/2016 Asstt. Year 2008-09

The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:

1.

That the ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the penalty levied u.s.271(1)(c) of the Act on account of disallowance of MCX loss of Rs.83,61,333/- made by the AO. 2. That ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act on account of disallowance of interest income of Rs.11,13,041/-

2.

At the outset, we note that the penalty in the case on hand was imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on account of the disallowances of MCX Loss and addition of interest income amounting to Rs. 83,61,333.00 and 11,13,041.00 respectively.

2.1 However, we find that the assessee against the confirmation of the quantum disallowance of MCX loss of Rs. 83,61,333.00 and addition of interest income of Rs. 11,13,041.00 by the learned CIT (A) preferred an appeal before the ITAT bearing ITA No. 1389/AHD/2014. The ITAT was pleased to restore the matter to the file of the learned CIT (A) for the fresh adjudication vide order dated 27-04-2018. The copy of the order of the ITAT is available on record.

2.2 On a query from the bench to the learned AR for the assessee to restore the issue to the file of the learned CIT-A for the fresh adjudication, he did not object. The learned DR also did not object if the matter is set aside to the learned CIT-A for fresh adjudication as per the provisions of law.

In view of the above facts, we are inclined to restore the impugned issue for fresh adjudication as per the provisions of law. Hence the ground of appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes.

Page 2 of 3

ITA no.604/AHD/2016 Asstt. Year 2008-09

3.

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

Order pronounced in the Court on 19/06/2019 at Ahmedabad.

-Sd- -Sd- (A.D. JAIN) (WASEEM AHMED) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (True Copy) Ahmedabad; Dated 19/06/2019 Manish

Page 3 of 3

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 →