ITO WARD-3, PANVEL vs. EKDANTA LAND PRIVATE LIMITED, URAN

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1895/PUN/2019Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 July 2022AY 2009-103 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 since the underlying quantum proceedings were quashed, the penalty levied based on those proceedings had no legal basis. Therefore, the penalty was not sustainable.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the deletion of a penalty by the CIT(A). The penalty was levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The original quantum proceedings under Section 153C had been quashed by a coordinate bench of the ITAT.

What were the issues?

Whether a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be sustained when the underlying quantum assessment proceedings have been quashed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 153C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, PUNE

Before: SHRI S.S.GODARA, JM & SHRI DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Vora
For Respondent: Shri S.P. Walimbe
Hearing: 09.06.2022Pronounced: 19.07.2022

आदेश / ORDER PER S. S. GODARA, JM :

1.

This assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2009-10 is directed against the CIT(A)-2, Thane’s order dated 02/09/2019 passed in case No. ITA(No).10767/2018-19 involving proceeding u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ; in short "the Act”. Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

Ekdanta Land Pvt. Ltd.,

2.

Coming to the Revenues sole substantive grievance that the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the impugned penalty of Rs.1,18,59,204/- levied by the Assessing Officer in his order dated 28.03.2017, we note at the outset that this tribunal’s coordinate bench’s order dated 17.10.2018 in has quashed section 153C quantum proceedings itself as not sustainable in law. This clinching fact has gone un-rebutted from the Revenue’s side.

3.

Faced with this situation, we hold that the impugned penalty has no legs to stand. The Revenue fails in its sole substantive ground therefore. Ordered accordingly.

4. This Revenue’s appeal is dismissed in above terms.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on this 19th day of July, 2022.

Sd/- Sd/- (DR.DIPAK P.RIPOTE) (S.S. GODARA) लेखध सदस्य/ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER न्यधनयक सदस्य/JUDICIAL MEMBER पपणे / Pune; ददनधांक / Dated : 19th July, 2022. Ashwini आदेश की प्रनतनलनप अग्रेनषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपऩलधथी / The Appellant. 1. प्रत्यथी / The Respondent. 2.

3. The CIT(A)-2 Thane.

4.

The Pr.CIT-2 Thane. 5. नवभधगऩय प्रनतनननध, आयकर अपऩलऩय अनधकरण, “ए” बेंच, पपणे / DR, ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune. गधर्ा फ़धइल / Guard File. आदेशधनपसधर / BY ORDER, 6. // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपऩलऩय अनधकरण, पपणे / ITAT, Pune.

Ekdanta Land Pvt. Ltd.,

S.No. Details Date Initials 1 Draft dictated on 09.06.2022 2 Draft placed before author 04.07.2022 Draft proposed & placed before the Second 3 Member 4 Draft discussed/approved by Second Member 5 Approved Draft comes to the Sr. PS/PS 6 Kept for pronouncement on 7 Date of uploading of Order 8 File sent to Bench Clerk 9 Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk 10 Date on which file goes to the A.R. 11 Date of Dispatch of order

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 →