SIVA INDUSTRIES AND HOLDINGS LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CHENNAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that since the quantum disallowances on which the penalty was retained by the CIT(A) were deleted by the Tribunal in the assessee's appeal, the consequential penalty would not survive.
What were the facts?
The assessee was subjected to penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) for AY 2008-09. The CIT(A) confirmed the penalty on disallowance of consultancy charges and escrow fees, while deleting it on other additions.
What were the issues?
Whether penalty under section 271(1)(c) can be sustained when the underlying additions leading to the penalty have been deleted.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM.
आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member)
Aggrieved by confirmation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for Assessment Year (AY) 2008-09 by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-15, Chennai [CIT(A)] vide order dated 11.02.2016, the assessee is in further appeal before us.
Upon perusal of case records, it could be seen that the assessee was saddled with certain additions which were subjected to penalty proceedings by Ld. AO vide order dated 26.06.2012. The Ld. AO levied penalty of Rs.1964.65 Lacs for various additions as enumerated in the penalty order. 3. The assessee assailed the penalty with partial success before Ld. CIT(A) vide impugned order dated 11.02.2016. The Ld. CIT(A) retained penalty on disallowance of consultancy charges and escrow fees. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. 4. We find that both the disallowances against which the penalty has been retained by Ld. CIT(A) has been deleted by Tribunal in assessee’s appeal order dated 23.12.2022. Since quantum disallowances have been deleted, the consequential penalty would not survive. We order so. For this reason alone, all the other grounds including legal grounds taken by the assessee has been rendered infructuous. 5. The assessee’s appeal stand allowed. Order pronounced on 23rd December, 2022.
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 →- N.K Fashion Through It Proprietor Mr. Narender Agarwal vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Central Goods And Service Tax, Delhi EastDelhi · 14 Oct 2026
- J M Mhatre Infra PVT. LTD Thr. Authorized Chetanj Mhatre vs. Union Of INDIA Thr. Secretary And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026
- J M Mhatre Infra PVT. LTD Thr. Authorized Chetan J. Mhatre vs. Union Of INDIA Thr. Secretary And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026
- Namita Behera vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Ratul Boro vs. The Union Of INDIA And 4 OrsGauhati · 14 Oct 2026