SHRI PIYUSH PRAKASHCHANDRA GHADIALI,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(4), ( NOW ITO, WARD- 1(2)(4)), SURAT
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that since the quantum addition on which the penalty was levied has been deleted by the ITAT in a separate appeal, the foundation for the penalty no longer exists. Therefore, the penalty is not justified.
What were the facts?
The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 7,12,775/- to the assessee's income due to unexplained enhancement in capital. A penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was levied on this addition and confirmed by the CIT(A).
What were the issues?
Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be sustained when the addition on which it was levied has been deleted.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SURAT BENCH, SURAT
Before: SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI & SHRI O.P.MEENA
Piyush Prakashchandra Ghaliali Vs. ITO, Ward-1(2)(4), Surat /ITA No.2066/AHD/2015 Page 1 of 2 आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण,सुरत �यायपीठ, सुरत IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P.MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अ.सं./I.T.A.No.2066/AHD/2015 �नधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year : 2008-09 Shri Piyush Prakashchandra Ghadiali, Vs. The Income Tax Officer 2/375, Pariswad, Ghanti Sheri, Ward-1(2),(4), Surat. Rustampura, Surat – 395 002. [PAN: ANJPG 4306 M] अपीलाथ� Appellant ��यथ�/Respondent �नधा�रती क� ओर से /Assessee by: Shri P.M.Jagasheth – CA राज�व क� ओर से /Revenue by: Shri Prasoon Kabra - Sr.DR
15.05.2019 सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing: उ�घोषणा क� तार�ख/Pronouncement on: 15.05.2019 आदेश /O R D E R PER BHAVNESH SAINI, JM: This appeal by the Assessee has been directed against the order 1. of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-II [ld.CIT(A)], Surat dated 09.06.2015 for assessment year 2008-09 challenging the levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act.
The assessee is engaged in the business of small scale trading 2. during the year under consideration. The Assessing Officer noted that assessee has enhanced his capital and in absence of any explanation and evidence addition of Rs.7,12,775/- was made. On this addition, penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act was levied which is confirmed by the ld.CIT(A).
The Learned Counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted the 3. assessee preferred appeal against the quantum addition before ITAT
Piyush Prakashchandra Ghaliali Vs. ITO, Ward-1(2)(4), Surat /ITA No.2066/AHD/2015 Page 2 of 2
Surat in ITA No.2829/Ahd/2012/SRT and the addition has been deleted by the Tribunal vide order dated 01.11.2018. Copy of the order is placed on record.
The Learned Departmental Representative did not dispute this. 4.
Considering the above facts, it is clear that the addition has been 5. deleted by the ITAT in the case of the same assessee on which penalty have been levied. Since foundation of the penalty has gone, therefore there was no justification to levy the penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act.
We, accordingly, set-aside the orders of the authorities below and 6. cancel the penalty.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. 7. The order pronounced in the open court 15-05-2019. 8. Sd/- Sd/- (O.P.MEENA) (BHAVNESH SAINI) (लेखासद�यकेसम� /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (�याियकसद�यतथा/JUDICIAL MEMBER) सुरत/ Surat, �दनांक Dated: 15th May , 2019/S.Gangadhara Rao, Sr.PS Copy of order sent to- Assessee/AO/Pr. CIT/ CIT (A)/ ITAT (DR)/Guard file of ITAT. By order / / TRUE COPY / / Assistant Registrar, Surat
More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
- Shalin Jayantbhai Desai, Vadodara vs ACIT, Circle-4(2), Vadodara Present…ITA 2569/AHD/2026[2010-11]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2010-11
- Neo Structo Construction P. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs The Pr. CIT- 3, AhmedabadITA 1216/AHD/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2370/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2369/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Md. Akhtar Ansari, Proprietor Of M/S Indian Associates vs. State Of Jharkhand, Through Commissioner Of State Tax, Commercial Tax Dept.Jharkhand · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S. Amarjothi Granites (INDIA) PVT. LTD., Berhampur, Ganjam vs. The Commissioner, Commercial Tax And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S. Mishka Steels LLP And Anr. vs. The Superintendent Of Central Goods And Service Tax, Cx, Range-Ii, Behala Div. And Ors.Calcutta · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Gujarat Co-Operative Milk Marketing Federation Limited vs. Union Of INDIAGujarat · 14 Oct 2026
- Ramesh K Devadiga vs. Khernagar Nandadeep Co Operative Housing Society LTDBombay · 14 Oct 2026