DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1, NASHIK vs. M/S. DHANAJAY MARKETING PVT.LTD, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 296/PUN/2022Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 December 2022AY 2014-152 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 when the primary addition on which the penalty was levied is deleted, the penalty cannot survive. This is a settled position of law, supported by Supreme Court decisions.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order deleting a penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c). The penalty was based on an addition that was subsequently deleted by the ITAT in the quantum appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be sustained when the underlying addition has been deleted by a higher appellate authority.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “C”, PUNE

Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO & SHRI S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI

For Respondent: Shri Suhas Kulkarni
Hearing: 20.12.2022Pronounced: 22.12.2022

PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM: This is an appeal filed by the Revenue directed against the order of the ld. CIT(A)-12, Pune [‘the CIT(A)’] dated 10.02.2022 for the assessment year 2014-15 deleting the penalty of Rs.87,76,380/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’).

2.

At the outset, we find from the impugned order that the ld. CIT(A) deleted the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) taking into consideration the fact that the addition, on the basis of which the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was levied by the Assessing Officer, was deleted by this 2 Tribunal in the quantum appeal vide order dated 19.05.2021 in IT(SS)A No.65/PUN/2017. We find merit in the reasoning of the ld. CIT(A) that when the quantum addition was deleted, the question of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) does not arise. It is a settled position of law that where the additions made in the assessment order, on the basis of which penalty for concealment was levied, are deleted, there remains no basis at all for levying the penalty for concealment and, therefore, in such a case no such penalty can survive and the same is liable to be cancelled as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K. C. Builders vs. ACIT [2004] 135 Taxman 461 (SC). Therefore, we find no merits in the appeal of the Revenue.

3.

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed. Order pronounced on this 22nd day of December, 2022. (S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) (INTURI RAMA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; "दनांक / Dated : 22nd December, 2022. Sujeet आदेश क" "ितिलिप अ"ेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ" / The Appellant.

1.

""यथ" / The Respondent.

2.3.

The CIT(A)-12, Pune.

4.

The Pr. CIT Central, Nagpur. िवभागीय "ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “C” ब"च, 5. पुणे / DR, ITAT, “C” Bench, Pune. गाड" फ़ाइल / Guard File. 6. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, //// Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.

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 →