INDIAN WIRE & STEEL PRODUCTS,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 44, KOLKATA
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal had previously allowed the assessee's appeal for the same assessment year by quashing the reopening of the assessment itself. Consequently, the penalty levied, which was based on the addition from the reopened assessment, was also directed to be deleted.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal was against a penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c). The penalty stemmed from a quantum addition made by the AO after reopening the assessment.
What were the issues?
The primary issue was whether the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) could survive when the underlying assessment addition was quashed due to invalid reopening.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: Shri A. T. Varkey, JM & Shri Rajesh Kumar, AM]
ORDER Per Shri A.T.Varkey, JM:
This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC),Delhi dated 12.07.2021 for AY 2009-10.
At the outset, the Ld. A.R. of the assessee Shri Avijit Dey drew our attention to the fact of this appeal of the assessee is against the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the penalty levied by the AO u/s 271(1)(c ) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). According to Ld. A.R, the quantum appeal against the addition in the assessment order made by the AO has been deleted by this Tribunal in assessee’s own case in for AY 2009-10 vide order dated 24.07.2019 by quashing the reopening re- opening of the assessment itself which led to the addition by the AO and drew our attention to page 1 to 6 of PB wherein we note that the assessee’s appeal for AY 2009-10 in respect to the quantum addition made by the AO after reopening the assessment was allowed by this Tribunal quashing the reopening itself. Thus it is noted that the penalty which was levied by the AO stems from the quantum addition made by the AO after reopening the assessment. And since this Tribunal has quashed the reopening the assessment itself, penalty also does
Indian Wire & Steel Products AY: 2009-10 not survive. Therefore the assessee’s appeal is allowed and the penalty is directed to be deleted.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.
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 →- Imtiyaz Shaikh Z Chorlekar vs. Salman ShaikhBombay · 21 Oct 2026
- Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University Thr Its Registrar Prashant S Amrutkar vs. Union Of INDIA Thr The Secretary And OthersBombay · 19 Oct 2026
- Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University Thr Registrar Prashant S Amrutkar vs. Union Of INDIA Thr Secretary And OthersBombay · 19 Oct 2026
- Vinishma Technologies Private Limited vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- Vinishma Technologies Private Limited vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026