THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1) (1), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. SHAH FOILS PVT. LTD., AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1797/AHD/2017Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 April 2019AY 2006-073 pages

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

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that since the quantum additions themselves did not survive, the basis for imposing the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) also ceased to exist. Therefore, the penalty was set aside and cancelled.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the deletion of penalties imposed under Section 271(1)(c) for AYs 2005-06 and 2006-07. The assessee argued that the quantum additions, which formed the basis for the penalty, were deleted by a co-ordinate bench and upheld by the Gujarat High Court.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be sustained when the underlying additions giving rise to the penalty have been deleted by higher authorities.

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, “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA & SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD

For Appellant: Shri Mudit Nagpal, Sr. DR, Shri K. C. Thaker, A.R

आदेश/O R D E R

PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA - AM:

The captioned appeals have been filed at the instance of the Revenue against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Ahmedabad (‘CIT(A)’ in short), dated 22.05.2017 arising in the penalty order dated 25.03.2015 passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under S. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) in both concerning AYs. 2005-06 & 2006-07.

ITA Nos.1796 & 1797/Ahd/17 [D.C.I.T. vs. Shah Foils Pvt. Ltd.] A.Y. 2005-06 & 2006-07 - 2 -

2.

In both the appeals, the Revenue has challenged the action of the CIT(A) in deleting penalty of Rs.25,51,499/- and Rs.1,75,58,793/- for AYs. 2005-06 & 2006-07 respectively under s. 271(1)(c) of the Act which was reversed by the CIT(A).

3.

When the matter was called for hearing, before the Tribunal, the learned AR for the assessee submitted at the outset that the quantum additions giving rise to the impugned penalty has been deleted by the co-ordinate bench in ITA No. 300/Ahd/2013 pertaining to AY 2005-06. It was further submitted that the aforesaid order of the ITAT was challenged by the Revenue before the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court under s.260A of the Act and the hon’ble Gujarat High Court was pleased to dismiss the appeal of the Revenue in Tax Appeal No. 993 of 2017, judgment dated07.02.2018. The learned AR submitted that the additions in 2005-06 & 2006-07 are identical and therefore where the very basis of imposition of penalty does not survive. The penalty under s.271(1)(c) of the Act cannot be naturally follow.

4.

The learned DR, on the other hand, relied upon the order of the AO but could not controvert the averments made on behalf of the assessee.

5.

We have heard the rival submissions. 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,

ITA Nos.1796 & 1797/Ahd/17 [D.C.I.T. vs. Shah Foils Pvt. Ltd.] A.Y. 2005-06 & 2006-07 - 3 -

the action of the AO towards imposing penalty is set aside and cancelled.

6.

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed.

This Order pronounced in Open Court on 10/04/2019

Sd/- Sd/- (MAHAVIR PRASAD) (PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad: Dated 10/04/2019 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 →