SARVA HARYANA GRAMIN BANK,ROHTAK vs. ACIT, ROHTAK CIRCLE, ROHTAK

PDF · subscribers
ITA 677/DEL/2019Status: HeardITAT Delhi24 January 2022AY 2012-133 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 noted that the assessment order for the same assessment year had already been quashed in the assessee's own case. Consequently, the penalty order, which is consequential to the assessment, does not survive.

What were the facts?

The assessee bank appealed against a penalty order under Section 271(1)(c). The penalty was confirmed by the CIT(A). The assessee argued that the penalty was void ab initio as it was passed in the name of a non-existent assessee and that the assessment itself had been quashed.

What were the issues?

Whether a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can survive when the underlying assessment order has been quashed. The validity of the penalty proceedings when the assessee was allegedly non-existent.

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, DELHI BENCH : G : NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI R.K. PANDA & SHRI N.K. CHOUDHRY

For Appellant: Shri Vivek Gupta, Advocate
For Respondent: Smt. Parmita Biswas, CIT, DR
Hearing: 24.01.2021Pronounced: 24.01.2022

BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank, Vs ACIT, SHGB House, Plot No.1, Rohtak Circle, Sector-3, Rohtak, Rohtak. Haryana. PAN: AAKAS1464M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Vivek Gupta, Advocate Revenue by : Smt. Parmita Biswas, CIT, DR Date of Hearing : 24.01.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 24.01.2022 ORDER

PER R.K. PANDA, AM:

1.

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 30.11.2018 of the CIT(A), Rohtak, relating to assessment year 2012-13.

2.

The grounds of appeal

raised by the assessee are as under:-

1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and provisions of the law, the order u/s 271(1)(c) dated 30/03/2017 of the Ld AO and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A), being passed in the name of the non-existence assessee, is void ab initio and therefore the same needs to be quashed.

2. That without prejudice to ground no 1 above and on the facts and circumstances of the case and provisions of the law, Ld AO as well as Ld CIT(A) erred in levying/ confirming the penalty under action 271(1)(c) despite of existence of non curable defects in issuance of notice under section 271(1)(c) by the Ld AO.

3. That without prejudice to ground no 1 and 2 above and on the facts and circumstances of the case & provisions of the law, the Ld CIT(A) erred in sustaining the penalty under section 271(1)(c) in respect of Rs. 20,39,000/- towards provision for fraud cases.”

3.

The ld. counsel for the assessee, at the outset, filed a copy of the order of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case in quantum appeal vide order dated 28th August, 2020 for AY 2012-13 and submitted that the Tribunal has quashed the assessment, therefore, the penalty does not survive. He accordingly submitted that the grounds raised by the assessee should be allowed.

4.

The ld. DR, on the other hand, fairly conceded that the Tribunal has quashed the assessment.

5.

After hearing both the sides, we find, the Tribunal in assessee’s own case vide order dated 28th August, 2020, has quashed the assessment. Therefore, the penalty does not survive. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed.

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 →