DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 3(1)(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S. HAJEE A P BAVA & COMPANY CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2490/BANG/2019Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 April 2021AY 2014-153 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the penalty order, based on the original assessment order which was set aside, was not sustainable. However, the AO was granted liberty to initiate penalty proceedings in the set-aside assessment.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s cancellation of penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c). The penalty was based on an addition of Rs.11,45,33,140/- claimed as bad debt, which was initially confirmed by the AO and ITAT but later set aside by the High Court for fresh consideration.

What were the issues?

The sustainability of a penalty order when the underlying assessment order is set aside for fresh consideration. The liberty of the AO to initiate penalty proceedings in 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, “B” BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN & SHRI B. R. BASKARAN

For Appellant: Smt. Susan Mathew, CA
For Respondent: Shri. B. K. Panda, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru, Smt. Susan Mathew, CA
Hearing: 19.04.2021Pronounced: 20.04.2021

O R D E R

Per N.V. Vasudevan, Vice President This is an appeal by the Revenue against the order dated 24.09.2019 of CIT(A)-3, Bengaluru, relating to Assessment Year 2014-15.

2.

In this appeal, the Revenue has challenged the order of CIT(A) whereby the CIT(A) cancelled the order of the AO imposing penalty on the assessee under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). At the time of hearing, learned Counsel for the assessee pointed out that penalty was imposed on the assessee in respect of addition of Rs.11,45,33,140/- which was claimed by the assessee as a bad debt written off. The AO did not allow the claim of the assessee. The CIT(A) confirmed the order of the AO. On further

1.

Page 2 of 3 appeal, the Hon’ble ITAT in dated 20.04.2018 confirmed the order of the CIT(A). The assessee filed an appeal before the Hon’ble High Court in ITA No.555/2018 and the Hon’ble High Court by its judgment dated 19.06.2020 set aside the order of the Tribunal and remanded the issue to the AO for fresh consideration. The AO passed an order dated 30.06.2020 whereby he deleted the addition made but reserved his right to examine the issue in the set aside assessment proceedings. In view of the above, learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the appeal of the Revenue should be dismissed. Learned DR on the other hand submitted that since the order of the AO has been set aside by the Hon’ble High Court, the AO should be given liberty to initiate penalty proceedings in the set aside proceedings to be passed pursuant to the order of the Hon’ble High Court.

3.

We have given a careful consideration to the rival submissions and are of the view that since the order of the AO based on which the penalty was imposed on the assessee has been set aside for fresh consideration, the order imposing penalty on the basis of the addition made in the original order of assessment is not sustainable. However, as submitted by the learned DR, the AO is at liberty to initiate penalty proceedings in the set aside proceedings pursuant to the order of the Hon’ble High Court. With these observations, we dismiss the appeal of the Revenue.

4.

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page.

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 →