DY. CIT, CIRCLER-3(1), HYDERABAD vs. M/S. SANGHI INDUSTRIES LTD., R.R.DIST

PDF · subscribers
ITA 122/HYD/2014Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad01 October 2019AY 2010-112 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The CIT(A) granted partial relief, reducing the penalty. The Tribunal is hearing appeals from both the Revenue and the assessee regarding the penalty amount.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed its return of income without paying self-assessment tax, leading the AO to initiate penalty proceedings. The assessee requested time to pay due to financial difficulties.

What were the issues?

The primary issue is the validity and quantum of penalty imposed for failure to pay self-assessment tax. The assessee's financial difficulties were considered.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 221(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘ B ‘ Bench, Hyderabad

Before: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Respondent: DR Assessee by: Sri K.A. Sai Prasad
Hearing: 23/09/2019Pronounced: 01/10/2019

Heard together (3 matters)

ITA Nos.122/Hyd/2014
ITA No.834/Hyd/2016
C.O.No.31/Hyd/2016

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

Per Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, J.M.

Both the appeals as well as the Cross Objections are filed against the order of the CIT (A)-Guntur, dated, 24/10/2013.

2.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee company filed its return of income for the A.Y 2010-11 on 23.09.2010 declaring total loss of Rs.2,22,41,970/- under the normal provisions and Rs.19,27,91,633/- u/s 115JB of the Act. The tax liability as per the assessee’s own computation was Rs.2,74,18,745/- and after claiming credit of TDS of

Page 1 of 8

ITA Nos 122 and 834 and CO 31 of 2016 Sangli Industries Ltd RR Distt.

Rs.18,14,935/-, the assessee determined its net aggregate liability at Rs.2,56,03,810/-.

3.

The assessee filed its return of income without making payment of self-assessment tax. Therefore, the AO initiated the proceedings u/s 221(1) of the Act, by issuing a notice dated 21.01.2011, to show cause as to why the penalty u/s 221(1) should not be imposed for failure to pay taxes. The assessee company, vide letter dated 1.2.2011, submitted that the industry is in financial crunch and requested time to pay the taxes by 14.03.2011. The AO however, held that the tax liability, in question, was admitted by the assessee on its own and it is not the result of an assessment nor is it disputed. Since the assessee did not make payment of advance tax in any of the four quarters and filed the return of income without making payment of self- assessment tax, he held that the provisions of section 221(1) of the Act are attracted. He, therefore, levied penalty equivalent to 25% of the aggregate tax liability which is Rs.64,00,953/- and raised the demand accordingly.

4.

Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT (A), who granted partial relief to the extent of Rs.54,00,953/- and restricted the penalty to Rs.10.00 lakhs. Against the relief granted by the CIT (A), the Revenue is in appeal before us and against the confirmation of the penalty to the extent of Rs.10.00 lakhs, the assessee has also filed the cross objection before us. Thereafter, the assessee has filed the cross appeal in ITA No.834/Hyd/2016. Both the C.O and Cross Appeal are filed with delay of 792 and 892 days respectively.

Page 2 of 8

More judgments on Section 221(1)

All 159 judgments and leading authorities on Section 221(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →