SHRI AMRUTRAM GURU, HUF,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-6(1), SURAT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2448/AHD/2015Status: DisposedITAT Surat12 January 2018AY 2004-052 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 issue on which the penalty was levied had been deleted by a previous order of the Tribunal. Therefore, the penalty was not maintainable.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed appeals against penalty orders levied under Section 271(1)(c) for the assessment year 2004-05. The penalties were confirmed by the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether a penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) is sustainable when the underlying issue leading to the penalty has been deleted by a higher appellate authority.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

25-41 ITA No.2447, 2448 of 2015 Shri Amrutram Guru and Amrutram Guru HUF 3114a3rtlafy3rferch<u, FTZrri, T IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT ~ihfv af,74Ifta-4aruefut tt.Hat, &unaF4cTI4T BEFORE SHRI CMGARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P.MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 1 3T.3.7.I.T.A No.2447 Ahd/2015 faeurad/Assessment Year 2004-05 2. 3T.3.7 II.T.A No.2448/Ahd/2015 faukuradlAssessment Year 2004-05 1 Amrutram Guru Vs.| Income Tax Officer , 6/519, Nava Ram Dwara, Ward -6(1), Gale Mandir Main Road, Surat Surat-395003 PAN AJTPM9222E 2. Amrutram Guru (HUF) 6/519, Nava Ram Dwara, Gale Mandir Main Road, Surat-395003 PAN AJTPM9222E 3rdireffAppellant_ 9ayeff/Respondent AeRala3k+t Assessee by TTGTFaa13kt /Revenue by Shri Vijay Mehta, CA Shri B.P.K Panda, Sr: D.R: 12.01.2018 TTan-Araru/ Date of hearing: 12.01.2018 3quilqunrlarfu/Pronouncement on 1~, ; HTR [ORDER s PERQ P MEENA_ACCQUIANT MEMBER: 1 These two appeals by the Assessee in the capacity of individual and HUF each are directed against the separate orders dated of 29.05.2015 Commissioner of Income-tax ITA No.2447, 2448 of 2015 2 Shri Amrutram Guru and Amrutram Guru HUF Surat (in short CIT(A)) and relates to assessment year 2004-05 in confirming (Appeals)-1 Rs. 5,45,114/ - and 5,45,040 / - under section 271 (1) (C) of the Act penalty of respectively in the case of individual and HUF: 2. At the out set of hearing before US, the learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the issue on which penalty was levied has been deleted by the Tribunal vide ITA No. 883 & 884/Ahd/2013 dated 20.01.2017. 3 We have heard the rival submissions. We find that the issue on which penalty levied stands deleted by the order of Tribunal (supra) Thus, the issue on which penalty is is longer survived; therefore, penalty levied is not maintainable hence it is levied no cancelled: Accordingly, the appeal of assessee is allowed: 3. In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed: Order was pronounced in the open court on 12.01.2018. ~ CMGARG) JUDICIAL MEMBER S7 (O.P. MEENA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 12.01.2018 Copy to: Appellant, Respondent, CIT(A), Pr. CIT, DR, Surat By Order 20 Is)ig Assistant Registrar 7aryes YoJTK alrr iriv effiito 7w774a, %a,

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 →