DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR vs. VEDANSH JEWELS P. LTD., JAIPUR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that since the quantum additions were deleted by the ITAT, the penalty imposed on those additions cannot be sustained. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.
What were the facts?
The Revenue appealed against the deletion of penalty by the CIT(A). The CIT(A) had deleted the penalty based on the ITAT's decision to delete the quantum additions made by the Assessing Officer.
What were the issues?
Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be sustained when the underlying additions have been deleted by the ITAT.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR
Before: SHRI BHAGCHAND, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 810/JP/2017
Heard together (2 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
PER SHRI BHAGCHAND ,AM.
This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order of Ld. CIT (A)-
2, Jaipur, dated 14.08.2017 pertaining to the Assessment Year 2010-11. The
Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:-
“(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the penalty of Rs. 26,91,260/- imposed by AO ignoring the fact that the order of the ITAT on the quantum issue has been challenged by the department before the Hon’ble High Court.
(ii) The appellant craves its rights to add, amend or alter any of the grounds on or before the hearing.”
The only issue is involved in this appeal is against deleting the penalty of Rs.
26,91,260/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. At the outset of hearing, the Ld. AR has
submitted that Hon’ble ITAT while deciding the quantum of appeal of the assessee
has deleted the addition and the Ld. CIT(A) has granted relief by relying upon the
2 ITA No. 810/JP/2017. Vedansh Jewels P. Ltd., Jaipur.
decision of the Hon’ble ITAT, Jaipur Bench in assessee’s quantum appeal.
Therefore, there is no merit in the appeal of the Revenue.
2.1 On the other hand, Ld. D/R has submitted that, the Department has preferred
the appeal against the quantum order of the ITAT before the Hon’ble Rajasthan High
court.
2.2 I have heard both the sides. The Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the penalty by
holding as under:-
“2.1 The authorized representative of the assessee filed a copy of the order of the Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur Bench in the assessee's own case for Assessment Year 2010-11. Vide this appeal order dated 28.04.2017 (ITA No.343/JP/2015), the Hon'ble ITAT decision is as under:
5.13 "In light of above discussion and in the entirety of the facts and in the circumstances of the case, we are of the view that there is no evidence demonstrating the existence of any arrangement between the assessee company and M/s Dwarka Jewels aimed at producing more than normal profit in the hands of the assessee company. Hence, the action of the authorities in invoking provisions of section 10AA(9) read with section 80IA(10) cannot be sustained. In the result, the consequent additions made by the assessing officer and partly upheld by the ld. CIT(A) is hereby deleted In the results, grounds taken by the assessee are allowed and ground of the revenue is dismissed"
Following the above judgment of Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur, since the quantum additions have been deleted, the penalty imposed thereon cannot be sustained. The appeal of the assessee is allowed.”
3 ITA No. 810/JP/2017. Vedansh Jewels P. Ltd., Jaipur.
Since, the relief has been granted by the Ld. CIT(A) on the basis of the deletion of
quantum of addition by Hon’ble ITAT, therefore, the Bench find no merit in the
appeal of the revenue same is hereby dismissed.
In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No. 810/JP/2017 is dismissed.
Order is pronounced in the open court on 08/12/2017.
Sd/- ( HkkxpUn ½ ( BHAGCHAND) ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member
Jaipur Dated:- 08/12/2017. Pooja/ आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेषित@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू 1. The Appellant- Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6, Jaipur. 2. The Respondent – M/s Vedansh Jewels Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur. 3. The CIT(A). 4. The CIT, 5. The DR, ITAT, Jaipur 6. Guard File (ITA No.810/JP/2017) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,
सहायक पंजीकार@ Aेेपेजंदज. त्महपेजतंत
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 →- Sh Umang Uniyal vs. Commissioner Department Of Central Goods And Services TaxUttarakhand · 16 Oct 2026
- Paresh Textiles Prop Paresh Gudhka vs. Superintendent Range Iv Div VBombay · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S Palladium Constructions PVT LTD. vs. Principal Commissioner Of Central TaxKarnataka · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S. Vk Construction vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - IiMadras · 15 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Sri Bhuvaneshwari And Co vs. The Deputy Commissioner (St)Madras · 15 Oct 2026