SHRI BHOJRAJ P. LUHANA L/H OF LATE KHUSHBUBEN R.MANWANI,ANAND vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-1, ANAND

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1167/AHD/2015Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 April 2019AY 2008-092 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 a penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed on a legal heir. The penalty order was therefore considered bad in law.

What were the facts?

The assessee's legal heir was penalized under section 271(1)(c) for the assessment year 2008-09. The assessee had passed away before the penalty order was framed.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be imposed on the legal heir of a deceased assessee.

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 Pramod Kumar]

1.

By way of this appeal, the assessee appellant has challenged learned CIT(A)’s order dated 27th February 2015, upholding penalty of Rs.3,03,171/- imposed upon the appellant under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2008-09.

2.

When the appeal was called out for hearing, learned representatives fairly accepted that the issue in appeal is covered, in favour of the assessee, by several decisions of this Tribunal, including in the cases of Srikishan Agarwal vs. DCIT [(2016) 48 ITR (T) 548 (Jaipur)] and ITO vs. VP Sharma [(2016) 154 Taxman 34 (Del) Mag], inasmuch as penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed on the legal heir. Learned Departmental Representative nevertheless relied upon the stand of the authorities below.

3.

I have heard the rival contentions, perused the material on record and duly considered applicable legal position in the light of facts on record.

4.

I find that the assessee, late Khusbuben R Manwani, had passed away on 04.09.2009, whereas the impugned penalty order was framed on the legal heir on

SMC-ITA No. 1167/Ahd/2015 Late Khushuben R Manwani Vs. ITO Assessment year: 2008-09 Page 2 of 2

09.12.2013. Clearly, therefore, the impugned penalty order is inherently bad in law, and the judicial precedents relied upon by the appellant support that position. I, therefore, delete the impugned penalty of Rs.3,03,171/-.

5.

In the result, the appeal is allowed in the terms and for the reasons set out above. Pronounced in the open court today on the 1st April, 2019.

Sd/-

Pramod Kumar (Vice President) Ahmedabad, the 1st day of April, 2019 **bt

Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) Commissioner (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File By order TRUE COPY Assistant Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Ahmedabad benches, Ahmedabad

1.

Date of dictation: ...... order prepared as per 2 pages manuscripts of Hon’ble VP..01.04.2019 2. Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Dictating Member: . 01.04.2019.......... 3. Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr. P.S./P.S.: …01.04.2019... 4. Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for Pronouncement:… 01.04.2019… 5. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk : .. 01.04.2019.... 6. Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk : ……………………………. 7. The date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order: …. 8. Date of Despatch of the Order: ………………......

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 →