L&T SHIPBUILDING LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 4(1), CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1742/CHNY/2019Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 November 2021AY 2012-133 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the quantum appeal related to the same issue had been set aside and remitted back to the AO. Therefore, the penalty proceedings could not survive and were also remitted back to the AO.

What were the facts?

The assessee-company failed to offer interest on bank deposits and income from sale of DEPB licenses for taxation. The Assessing Officer imposed a penalty under Section 271(1)(c), which was confirmed by the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be sustained when the underlying quantum appeal has been set aside and remitted for fresh adjudication.

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, ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: SHRI V. DURGA RAO & SHRI G. MANJUNATHA

Hearing: 03.11.2021Pronounced: 26.11.2021

आदेश / O R D E R

Per V. Durga Rao, Judicial Member:

1.

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Chennai in dated 04.04.2019 relevant to the Assessment Year 2012-13.

2 -: 2. In this case, the Assessing Officer (AO) has initiated the penalty proceedings and imposed penalty and the same is confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) on the ground that the assessee-company had not offered the interest on bank deposits as well as income from sale of DEPB licenses for taxation. The assessee-company was obligated to offer this income of Rs. 4,15,54,233/- as pre operative income under the head income from other sources. Non offering the income for taxation is deliberate attempt and tax evasive act of filing wrong particulars and concealing the taxable income attracts penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter "the Act"). In view of the above observation, the Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the penalty levied by the A.O of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act.

3.

On being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal.

4.

The ld. counsel for the assessee has submitted that the quantum appeal filed by the assessee before the ITAT, the Hon’ble ITAT has set aside the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and remitted the matter back to the A.O to adjudicate the issue afresh in accordance with law. He has further submitted that in view of the order passed by the Tribunal in the quantum appeal, penalty levied by the Ld. CIT(A) cannot survive and submitted that the same may be remitted back to the A.O.

3 -: 5. On the other hand, the Ld. D.R has not raised any objection to the submission of the Ld. counsel for the assessee.

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 →