SANGHI INDUSTRIES LTD, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal considered the appeal by the Revenue against the partial relief granted by the CIT(A) and the cross-objection/appeal by the assessee against the confirmed penalty. The judgment details the penalty levied and the subsequent partial relief granted by the CIT(A).
What were the facts?
The assessee company filed its return of income declaring a total loss but with a significant tax liability under Section 115JB. The assessee failed to pay self-assessment tax before filing the return, leading the AO to initiate penalty proceedings under Section 221(1).
What were the issues?
The primary issue revolves around the levy of penalty under Section 221(1) for failure to pay self-assessment tax when the assessee had declared a tax liability. The extent of penalty and the relief granted by the CIT(A) were also under consideration.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
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
Heard together (3 matters)
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.
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/-.
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.
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)
- Ruby Singh, Delhi vs DCIT, CC-8, DelhiITA 3044/DEL/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed31 Aug 2026AY 2019-20
- Ruby Singh, Delhi vs DCIT, CC-8, DelhiITA 3043/DEL/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed31 Aug 2026AY 2018-19
- Ruby Singh, Delhi vs DCIT, CC-8, DelhiITA 3042/DEL/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed31 Aug 2026AY 2016-17
- Kamuben Ramanlal Patel, Daman vs Income Tax Officer, DamanITA 798/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed10 Aug 2026AY 2017-18
- Bank of Baroda (E-Vijaya Bank), Delhi vs Addl Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 1864/DEL/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed5 Aug 2026AY 2013-14
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Dezinetree Projects PVT. LTD. vs. Spokes Digital Inc And AnrDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Jaydeep Jayantilal Hudaka vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 28 Oct 2026
- Commissioner/Additional Commissioner Of Central Tax vs. M/S INDIA Agro Exports Private LimitedKarnataka · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Rohit Medical Systems vs. Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Services Tax And Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026