MIHIR MADHAVRAO SURYAWANSHI,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -11(2), PUNE, PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 129/PUN/2020Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 June 20223 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that since the co-ordinate bench had already deleted the disallowance of the Section 54F deduction, the penalty imposed as a consequence had no basis to stand. Therefore, the penalty was ordered to be deleted.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal concerns a penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. This penalty arose from the disallowance of the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 54F.

What were the issues?

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

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 54F

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI R.S. SYAL & SHRI S.S. GODARA

For Appellant: Shri M.R. Shirude
For Respondent: Shri M.G. Jasnani

Assessee by Shri M.R. Shirude Revenue by Shri M.G. Jasnani Date of hearing 02-06-2022 Date of pronouncement 06-06-2022 आदेश / ORDER

PER S.S. GODARA, JM :

1.

This assessee‟s appeal for AY 2013-14 arises against the CIT(A)-1, Pune‟s order dated 27-11-2019 passed in case No. PN/CIT(A)-1/ITO, WD11(2)/PN/47/2017-18 involving proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in short „the Act‟. Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

It emerges at the outset that the assessee has sought to reverse both the learned lower authorities action invoking section 271(1)(c) of the Act thereby imposing penalty of Rs.13,66,999/- in 2 Mihir Madhavrao Suryawanshi the assessing authority‟s order dated 18.05.2017 as affirmed in the CIT(A)‟s detailed discussion in issue. 3. Both the learned Representatives are very much in agreement during the course of hearing that the impugned penalty has arisen in consequence to the lower authorities action disallowing the assessee‟s section 54F deduction claim of Rs.66,35,931/-. And that this tribunal‟s co-ordinate bench‟s order dated 16.12.2019 in assessee‟s quantum appeal has already deleted the foregoing 54F disallowance and therefore, we conclude that the penalty in issue herein has no legs to stands as a necessary corollary. Ordered accordingly. The assessee succeeds in his instant sole substantive ground. 4. This assessee‟s appeal is allowed in above terms.

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 →