SACHIN BHANDARI,JALANDHAR vs. ITO, THANE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5684/MUM/2024Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 February 2025AY 2015-16Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (Vice President), SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA (Accountant Member)1 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 assessment order was set aside by the first appellate authority, the penalty order would have no legal standing. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the penalty order.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against an order of the NFAC confirming a penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c). The penalty was imposed for the assessment year 2015-16.

What were the issues?

Whether a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can survive when the original assessment order is set aside and a de novo assessment is ordered?

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, “G” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VP & SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, AM

For Appellant: Shri Ashray Sarna
For Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pusharaj Ramesh
Hearing: 25.02.2025Pronounced: 28.02.2025

O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey, VP:

This is an appeal by the assessee, against order dated 20.09.2024, passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, confirming the penalty imposed u/s. 271(1)(c) for the assessment year (A.Y.) 2015-16.

2.

We have heard the parties and perused the materials available on record. Before us, learned counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that when the learned first appellate authority passed the impugned order, confirming the penalty imposed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, the quantum appeal was pending before him. He submitted, subsequently, while deciding the quantum appeal of the assessee, learned first appellate authority has set aside the assessment order with a direction to the Assessing Officer (AO) to frame de novo assessment. assessment order is no longer in existence, having been set aside by learned first appellate authority, the impugned order imposing penalty would have no legs to stand.

Therefore, we are inclined to set aside the impugned order of learned first appellate authority and delete the penalty imposed. The A.O. may initiate proceeding for imposition of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, if warranted, depending upon the outcome of de novo assessment.

4.

In the result, the appeal is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 28.02.2025 Sd/- Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Billaiya) (Saktijit Dey) Accountant Member Vice President Mumbai; Dated : 28.02.2025 Roshani, Sr. PS Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) 4. CIT - concerned 5. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. Guard File BY ORDER,

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 →