SMT. SAVITABEN ARVINDBHAI PATEL,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-1(2), SURAT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2383/AHD/2014Status: DisposedITAT Surat15 October 2018AY 2008-092 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 primary issue on which the penalty was levied had been set aside by a previous Tribunal order for fresh consideration. Therefore, the penalty was not maintainable in its current form.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against a penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c). The penalty was imposed on unexplained advance receipts related to the sale of agricultural land.

What were the issues?

Whether a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be sustained when the underlying assessment issue has been set aside for fresh adjudication.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Savitaben Arvindbhai Patel v. ITO 1(2)( Surat /I.T.A. No.2383/Ahd/2014/A.Y. 08-09 Page 1 of 2 INCOM TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL-SURAT-BENCH-SURAT BEFORE C .M. GARG, JM & O. P. MEENA, AM I.T.A. No.2383/Ahd/2014: Assessment Year: 2008-09 Smt. Savitaben Arvindbhai Patel, V. Income Tax Officer 17, Apasara Industrial Society, Ward 1(2) Surat Udhna Magdhala Road Surat 395007 PAN: ABGPP 5099 M अपीलाथ� Appellant ��यथ�/Respondent

Assessee by Shri Viresh Rudalal , CA Revenue by Smt. Smitha Nair, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing 15.10.2018 Date of pronouncement 15.10.2018

ORDER Per O. P. Meena, AM 1. This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the order dated 07.07.2014 of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-II, Surat (in short CIT(A)) and relates to assessment year 2008-09 , in confirming penalty of Rs.5,90,330 under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. At the outset of hearing before us, the learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the issue on which penalty was levied has been set-aside by the Tribunal the file of AO for fresh consideration, vide ITA no. 1896/Ahd/2011 dated 21.11.2014 for the assessment year 2008- 09. 3. We have heard the rival submissions. We find that the issue of unexplained advance receipts of Rs. 17,60,000 on account of sale of agricultural land on which penalty levied stands to set aside to the file of

Savitaben Arvindbhai Patel v. ITO 1(2)( Surat /I.T.A. No.2383/Ahd/2014/A.Y. 08-09 Page 2 of 2 the AO for fresh decision by the order of Tribunal (supra). Thus, the issue on which penalty is levied is no longer survived; therefore, penalty levied is not maintainable as of now. Accordingly, we delete the penalty so levied subject to condition that the AO is free to re-initiate penalty proceedings under section 271 (1) (c) of the Act, on finalization of set-aside assessment proceedings, if the circumstances so warrant or he thinks fit. 4. In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed. 5. The order pronounced in the open Court on 15.10.2018.

Sd/- Sd/- (सी.एम.गग� /C.M. GARG) (ओ.पी.मीना/O.P.MEENA) �याियकसद�यतथा/JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखासद�यकेसम� /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER सुरत Dated: 15-10-2018. आदेश क� �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order is forwarded to : 1.अपीलाथ�/ The Appellant; 2. ��थ�/ The Respondent; 3. आयकरआयु� (अपील) The CIT(A)4.आयकरआयु� / Pr. CIT 5.िवभागीय�ितिनिध, आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण/D.R. (ITAT) 6. गाड�फाईल / Guard file ITAT. By order / / TRUE COPY / / Assistant Registrar, Surat

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 →