M/S. SAMARTH INDIA,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(4), SURAT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 103/AHD/2017Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 March 2018AY 2002-033 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 quantum additions were not in existence after the restoration of the cases, the penalties imposed under Section 271(1)(c) could not be sustained. The Assessing Officer was directed to delete the penalties.

What were the facts?

The appeals were filed against the confirmation of penalties imposed under Section 271(1)(c) for AY 2002-03 and 2003-04. The Tribunal had previously restored the quantum appeals to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be sustained when the underlying additions have been set aside and restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment.

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, SURAT BENCH,SURAT

Before: SHRI C.M.GARG & SHRI O.P.MEENA

PERC.M.GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

M/s. Samarth India &Shreyansh Corporation Above captioned appeals have been filed against the Orders of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Surat (for short ‘CIT(A)’) by which penalty imposed on both the assessees u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) has been confirmed for Assessment Year (A.Y) 2002-03 and 2003-04. 2. Since by the separate order passed today, in the relevant quantum appeals i.e., ITA No.103/Ahd/2017 to 106/Ahd/2017 for A.Y 2002-03 & 2003-04 along with other 7 appeals (total 11 appeals) after condoning the delay in filing appeal before Tribunal, we have restored all the matters to the file of the Assessing Officer (AO) for a fresh adjudication after allowing due opportunity of hearing to the assessee therefore, the penalty imposed by the AO and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) in all these four appeals does not survive as the additions are not in existence after restoration of case to the assessment stage to the file of A.O. Therefore, penalty imposed by the AO u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act which has been upheld by the ld. CIT(A) in all these four appeals cannot be held as sustainable and we direct the AO to delete the same.

3.

However, before we part with the order make it clear that in the event if in the reassessment orderpassed in pursuant to the Tribunal order the AO makes additions and as per facts and circumstances it is necessary and required to initiate penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act or any ofthe relevant provision then, the AO shall not be prevented in initiating the M/s. Samarth India &Shreyansh Corporation penalty proceedings and he shall be empowered to pass appropriate order as per provisions of the Act.

4.

In the result, all four appeals are allowed with the directions and liberty to the AO as mentioned herein above.

Order pronounced in the open court on this day of 23rdMarch, 2018. (ओपीमीना) (सीएमगग") C.M.GARG (O.P.MEENA) लेखासद"/Accountant Member "ाियकसद"/Judicial Member सूरत/Surat; "दनांक Dated : 23rdMarch, 2018 EDN

आदेश क" ""त"ल"प अ"े"षत/Copy of the Order is forwarded to : अपीलाथ" / The Appellant; 1. 2. ""यथ" / The Respondent; 3. आयकरआयु"(अपील) / The CIT(Appeals)-2, Surat;

4.

Pr. CIT-1,Surat; "वभागीय""त"न"ध,आयकरअपील"यअ"धकरण,पुणे/ DR, ITAT,Surat; 5. 6 गाड" फाईल / Guard file.

आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER स"या"पत ""त//// सहायकप"जीकर /

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 →