ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, NASHIK vs. GULAB MAHARU BADGUJAR (HUF), THANE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1439/PUN/2019Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 August 2022AY 2006-073 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessment order itself had been quashed by the Tribunal in the assessee's own case for the same assessment year. Consequently, the penalty order was rendered infructuous.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order which allowed the assessee's appeal against a penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c). The penalty was levied after an addition was made pursuant to a revision order under Section 263.

What were the issues?

Whether a penalty order can survive when the underlying assessment order has been quashed. The validity of the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) in the absence of a valid assessment order.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 263,Section 143(3),Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

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

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. Shingte
For Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, Shri Pramod S. Shingte
Hearing: 04.08.2022Pronounced: 23.08.2022

ORDER

PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM:

1.

This is an appeal filed by the Revenue directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 12, Pune [‘the CIT(A)’] dated 26.07.2019 for the assessment year 2006-07.

2.

Briefly, the facts of the case are that the respondent-assessee is HUF deriving income under the head “Income from other sources”.

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 →