ACIT, NCC - 7 (1), CHENNAI vs. SHRI S. MOORTHY, CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3327/CHNY/2019Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 November 2021AY 2012-133 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 once the additions on which penalty was levied are deleted by the appellate authority, the penalty cannot survive. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s deletion of the penalty was justified.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer levied penalty under Section 271(1)(c) after making additions during assessment. The CIT(A) deleted the penalty, a decision upheld by the Tribunal.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be sustained when the underlying additions have been deleted by the appellate authority.

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: 15.11.2021

order of the learned CIT(A)-7, Chennai, dated 27.09.2019 and pertains to assessment year 2012-13.

2.

The Revenue has raised following grounds of appeal:-

“The Order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is contrary to the Law and facts of the case.

1.

CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c ) of the IT Act, by holding that penalty is not attracted on estimated additions.

2. CIT(A) relied on his own decision on the quantum appeal of the assessee’s own case (vide order in 7/2019-20 dated 28-08-2019) and deleted the penalty levied on the same without considering the fact that the quantum

appeal is not yet reached finality which is pending for adjudication before ITAT.

3. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that even penalty proceedings also assessee did not furnish the details in support of his claim to prove genuineness of the same.”

3.

Brief facts of the case are that assessment for impugned assessment year has been completed u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee has challenged assessment order before the Tribunal. The ITAT., Chennai Benches vide its order dated 10.03.2021 in has deleted additions made by the Assessing Officer by upholding order of the learned CIT(A). In the meantime, the Assessing Officer has levied penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee has challenged penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer before the CIT(A) and learned CIT(A) vide order dated 27.09.2019 deleted penalty levied by the Assessing Officer by following certain judicial precedents.

Aggrieved by the learned CIT(A) order, the Revenue is in appeal before us.

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 →