DCIT, CIRCLE - 49(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. PARTHA CHAKRABORTI, SALT LAKE CITY, KOLKATA
In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no error in the deletion of the penalty. It observed that the very foundation for the penalty – the quantum additions – had been deleted by the coordinate bench. The Tribunal concluded that no penalty was leviable where the additions forming its basis were either deleted or not sustained.
What were the facts?
The revenue filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order deleting a penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) for Assessment Year 2014-15. The penalty was originally imposed by the Assessing Officer based on additions made during assessment under Section 143(3), primarily related to Section 68, but a significant portion of these underlying additions had been deleted by the Tribunal in quantum proceedings. The revenue contended that the quantum order was challenged via an SLP before the Supreme Court.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act when the primary additions forming the basis of such penalty had been set aside or deleted by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in quantum proceedings.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 271(1)(c),Section 143(3),Section 68,Section 40(a)(ia),Section 40A(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA
आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This is an appeal filed by the revenue against the order dated 12.03.2024, passed by the CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, passed in DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1062475105(1), for the assessment year 2014-2015, thereby confirming the penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. Shri Subhasis Ghosh & Shri S. Bhattacharjee, ARs appeared on behalf of the assessee. Shri Susanta Shah, Sr. DR appeared on behalf of the revenue. 3. At the outset, on perusal of the appeal record, we found that the appeal of the revenue is filed belatedly by 53 days. In this regard, the 11.11.2024 stating sufficient reasons for condonation of delay, which in our opinion, is plausible one. Accordingly, the delay of 53 days in filing the appeal by the revenue is condoned and the appeal is admitted for hearing.
It was submitted by the ld Sr. DR that in the present case, the assessment came to be completed u/s.143(3) of the Act on 26.12.2016, wherein a number of additions have been made. It was the submission that the matters reached to the Tribunal and the Tribunal vide its order passed in dated 06.09.2019, deleted the substantial portion of the additions. It was the submission that penalty order u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act came to be passed by the Assessing Officer on 28.03.2019 on the basis of the order of the ld. CIT(A) in quantum appeal confirming the additions made by the Assessing Officer. It was the submission that against the penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act, the assessee had filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) had taken cognizance of the order of the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in quantum appeal passed in dated 06.09.2019 wherein most of the additions made by the Assessing Officer had been deleted. Consequently, the ld. CIT(A) deleted the penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act by holding that the additions, per se, had been deleted in the quantum proceedings. There were certain additions which had been sustained by the Tribunal in respect of the donations and subscriptions, entertainment expenses, interest on refund, disallowances u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act and partly on bogus expenditure disallowance u/s.40A(3) of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) had deleted the penalty in its entirety. It was the submission that the quantum order of the Tribunal admittedly has been upheld by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Calcutta but the revenue has preferred appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide an SLP. It was the submission that the order of the ld. CIT(A) deleting the penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act, is liable to be reversed.
In reply, ld. AR drew our attention to the affidavit in opposition filed by the assessee. It was the submission that the main addition being in respect of the transactions with M/s Chakra Infrastructure Ltd. and other bogus loans from Disha Productions and Medial Pvt. Ltd. have been deleted by the Tribunal vide quantum order. Similarly, additions in regard to allegation of cash payment for disallowance of the business expenditure had been partly allowed by the Tribunal. It was the submission that the revenue has not provided any information regarding SLP filed by the revenue before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It was the submission that as the Assessing Officer has also given effect to the order of the Tribunal and the additions have already been deleted, the order of the ld. CIT(A) is liable to be upheld.
We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the facts of the present case clearly shows that the very foundation on which the penalty has been levied being the additions made u/s.68 of the Act in the assessment order, had already been deleted by the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case in the quantum proceedings in vide order dated 06.09.2019. As it is noticed that the ld.
CIT(A) has considered the fact that the quantum addition had been deleted by the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in the quantum appeal and on the additions not contested or partly sustained before the Tribunal, no penalty was leviable. Therefore, we find no error in the order of the ld. CIT(A) which calls for no interference. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal of the revenue. 7. In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 01/05/2025.
More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
- Shalin Jayantbhai Desai, Vadodara vs ACIT, Circle-4(2), Vadodara Present…ITA 2569/AHD/2026[2010-11]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2010-11
- Neo Structo Construction P. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs The Pr. CIT- 3, AhmedabadITA 1216/AHD/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2370/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2369/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Biswanath Rana vs. The Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Sushama Mishra vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Saudamini Samantray vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Bhubaneswar IiOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Keshav Rice Mill, Ganjam vs. Chief Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, KatakaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Nanda Contruction PVT. LTD., Angul vs. Additional Commissioner, GST And Central Excise Commissionerate, SundergarhOrissa · 28 Oct 2026