MRS.SEJAL J PANCHAL,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO,WARD-5 (2)(4), AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1866/AHD/2017Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 February 2019AY 2006-072 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 since the quantum addition, which formed the basis for the penalty, was quashed, the penalty had become infructuous. Therefore, the penalty was no longer sustainable.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against a penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The penalty was based on a quantum addition made in the assessment order. However, the quantum addition itself was later quashed by a coordinate bench of the ITAT.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) could survive when the underlying quantum addition on which it was based had been quashed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 143(3),Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD “SMC” BENCH

Before: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Suresh R. Shah, A.R
For Respondent: Shri B.L. Meena, Sr. D.R, Shri Suresh R. Shah, A.R

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “SMC” BENCH Before: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Member And Shri Amarjit Singh, Accountant Member ITA No. 1866/Ahd/2017 Assessment Year 2006-07

Mrs. Sejal J. Panchal, The ITO, 31-B, Swati Society, Ward-5(2)(4), Navrangpura, Ahmedabad Vs Ahmedabad PAN: AKEPP9021K (Respondent) (Appellant)

Revenue by: Shri B.L. Meena, Sr. D.R. Assessee by: Shri Suresh R. Shah, A.R. Date of hearing : 05-02-2019 Date of pronouncement : 18-02-2019 आदेश/ORDER PER : AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:-

This assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2006-07, arises from order of the CIT(A)-5, Ahmedabad dated 30-05-2017, in proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”.

2.

The solitary ground of appeal of the assessee is against the order of ld. CIT (A) in confirming the penalty of Rs. 93,000/- levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the act.

I.T.A No. 1866/Ahd/2017 A.Y. 2006-07 Page No 2 Mrs. Sejal J. Panchal vs. ITO

3.

During the course of appellate proceedings before us, the ld. counsel has brought to our notice that that the quantum addition on the basis of which penalty impugned levied has been quashed by the coordinate bench of the ITAT vide ITA No. 776/Ahd/2015 dated 13th December, 2017.

4.

With the assistance of ld. Representatives we have gone through the aforesaid order of the Co-ordinate Bench of the ITAT in the case of the assessee and noticed that assessment order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 passed on 14th Feb, 2014 was quashed therefore, we consider that impugned penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) has become infructuous as the quantum addition on the basis of which penalty was levied had ceased to exist.

5.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 18-02-2019 Sd/- Sd/- (MAHAVIR PRASAD) (AMARJIT SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ahmedabad : Dated 18/02/2019 आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. Concerned CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. 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 →