MANIZA JUMABHOY, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-6(3), HYD, HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 223/HYD/2016Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 January 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 held that the penalty order, based on an assessment that has now been set aside, is not sustainable. Therefore, the penalty order was cancelled.

What were the facts?

The assessee and revenue filed cross-appeals against the CIT(A)'s order partially allowing an appeal against a penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c). The assessee's quantum appeal for the same assessment year was set aside by another bench of the Tribunal for de novo consideration.

What were the issues?

Whether a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be sustained when the underlying assessment order has been set aside. The sustainability of the penalty in light of the set-aside 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, Hyderabad ‘ A ‘ Bench, Hyderabad

Before: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri B.RamakotaiahSmt. Maniza Jumabhoy Smt. Maniza Jumabhoy

Hearing: 08.01.2018Pronounced: 08.01.2018

Per Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, J.M.

These are cross appeals of the assessee as well as the Revenue for the A.Y 2008-09 against the order of the CIT (A)-6, Hyderabad, dated 23.12.2015 in partially allowing the appeal of the assessee against the penalty imposed by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.

2.

At the time of the hearing, the learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the quantum appeal of the assessee for Page 1 of 2

ITA Nos 223 and 922 of 2016 Smt Maniza Jumabhoy Hyderabad.

the very same A.Y, has been set aside to the file of the AO for de novo consideration by the ‘B’ Bench of this Tribunal as to verify to whether the assessee has any title to the property and whether she has received any consideration.

3.

Taking the same into consideration, we find that the penalty order on the basis of the assessment completed u/s 143(3), which has now been set aside, is not sustainable. In view of the same, the penalty order of the AO u/s 271(1)(c) dated 25.03.2014 is cancelled, with the liberty to the AO to initiate penalty proceedings afresh after completing the assessment consequent to the directions of the Tribunal.

4.

In the result, both the assessee’s as well as Revenue’s appeals are treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 8th January, 2018.

Sd/- Sd/- (B. Ramakotaiah) (P. Madhavi Devi) Accountant Member Judicial Member

Hyderabad, dated 8th January 2018. Vinodan/sps Copy to: 1 Smt. Maniza Jumabhoy, 8-2-584, ‘Sangrila’ Road No.9, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad 2 ITO Ward 6(3) Hyderabad 3 ITO (International Taxation) –I, 5th Floor, Room No.516, Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad 4 CIT (A)-6 Hyderabad 5 Pr. CIT – 6 Hyderabad 6 The DR, ITAT Hyderabad 7 Guard File

By Order

Page 2 of 2

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 →