THE ITO, WARD-1(1)(2), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. BUSY BEE ENGINEERING PVT. LTD., AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 224/AHD/2017Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 October 2018AY 1998-19993 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that since the quantum additions forming the basis for the penalty were deleted by a coordinate bench of the ITAT, the penalty appeal was infructuous. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) dismissing the penalty appeal was upheld.

What were the facts?

The assessee company filed its return for AY 1998-99 declaring a loss. Subsequent assessment and penalty proceedings were initiated. The ITAT had previously set aside the quantum addition order, leading to the deletion of additions.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be sustained when the underlying additions have been deleted by the Tribunal.

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, “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR

Hearing: 30/07/2018Pronounced: 11/10/2018

PER Ms MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

The instant appeal preferred by the Revenue before us is against the order dated 25/11/2016, passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-4, Ahmedabad, arising out of the penalty order dated 25/03/2013, passed u/s.271(1)(c) of the Income tax Act 1961, framed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Ahmedabad, for assessment year 1998-1999.

ITA No.224/Ahd/2017 For A.Y.1998-1999 2 2. This file has chequered history. The assessee company filed its return of income for assessment year 1998-1999 on 30/11/1998, declaring total loss at Rs.(-)4,15,862/-. Finally, order u/s.143(3) of the Act, was passed on 28/03/2001, determining the total income at Rs.4,16,81,150/- by making certain additions by the Ld.Assessing Officer. Against the same the assessee company went in appeal before Ld.CIT(A) and again to the Ld.ITAT. By and under the order dated 23/12/2009. The Ld.ITAT, remitted the matter to the file of the Ld.Assessing Officer, with certain directions upon setting aside the order passed by the Ld.CIT(A). Subsequently, notice u/s.143(2) of the Act, was again issued on 01/07/2010, and finally additions were made by the ITO,1(2), Ahmedabad, against which the assessee went on appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), who in turn confirmed the same by and under the order dated 08/02/2012. Simultaneously, a penalty proceedings was also initiated by the Ld.AO culminating into the order of imposition of penalty dated 25.03.2013. On the other hand the appeal preferred by the assessee challenging the validity of the order dated 08/02/2012, passed by the Ld.CIT(A), confirming the quantum order has been allowed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Ld.Tribunal on 18/10/2016. Consequentially, the additions were deleted.

3.

Since the quantum order was quashed ultimately by the Ld.ITAT, the appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act, dated 25/03/2013, though taken up by the Ld.CIT(A), the same was dismissed as infructuous as no penalty is leviable against the appellant. The Revenue has come up before us against the said order of dismissal in the penalty appeal.

ITA No.224/Ahd/2017 For A.Y.1998-1999 3 4. At the time of hearing of the instant appeal the Ld.representative of the assessee narrated the entire facts before us, as already been stated hereinbefore. He thus, prayed for dismissal of this appeal preferred by the Revenue. The Ld.Departmental Representative, however, relied upon the order passed by the Ld.AO. After hearing the Ld.Counsel appearing for the parties and upon going through the relevant materials available on records and taking into consideration the particular facts of the matter, we find no infirmity in the order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) in dismissing the appeal preferred by the assessee when the very basis of such penalty appeal being the quantum order has been quashed by the Ld.ITAT by and under the order dated 18/10/2016, which is on record before us

5.

We, therefore, dismiss the appeal preferred by the Revenue.

Order pronounced in the Court on 11/10/2018 at Ahmedabad.

-Sd- -Sd- ( PRAMOD KUMAR) (Ms MADHUMITA ROY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 11/10/2018 Manish आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 1. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 2. संबं�धत आयकर आयु�त / Concerned CIT 3. आयकर आयु�त(अपील) / The CIT(A), Ahmedabad 4. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, 5. Ahmedabad गाड� फाईल / Guard file. 6.

आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.Registrar) आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad

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 →