SHARDA SUGAR COMPANY,MUZAFFARNAGAR vs. ITO, WARD- 2(3), MUZAFFARNAGAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5316/DEL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 August 2019AY 2013-143 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 condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It was held that since the quantum addition was set aside for fresh adjudication, the penalty levied did not survive and was therefore cancelled.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the penalty order, with a delay of 78 days. The delay was attributed to the ill health of the partners of the firm. The assessee also submitted that the quantum addition, which formed the basis for the penalty, had been restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) survives when the underlying quantum addition is set aside for fresh adjudication. The issue of condonation of delay in filing the appeal was also addressed.

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, DELHI BENCH : SMC : NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI R.K. PANDA

For Appellant: Smt. Prem Lata Bansal, Sr. Advocate &, Shri Abhishek Kumar, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr.DR
Hearing: 30.07.2019Pronounced: 01.08.2019

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : SMC : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2013-14 Sharda Sugar Company, Vs. ITO, C/o N.K. Arora, Advocate, Ward 2(3), 219, Civil Line South, Muzaffarnagar (UP). Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh. PAN: AAFFS1902E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Smt. Prem Lata Bansal, Sr. Advocate & Shri Abhishek Kumar, Advocate Revenue by : Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 30.07.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 01.08.2019 ORDER

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 30.08.2017 of the CIT(A), Muzaffarnagar, relating to Assessment Year 2013-14.

2.

The assessee in the various grounds of appeal has challenged the order of the CIT(A) in confirming the penalty of Rs.10 lakhs u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.

3.

There is a delay of 78 days in filing of this appeal. The ld. counsel for the assessee referring to the condonation application filed along with the affidavit of the assessee, submitted that during the relevant time, the assessee was a partnership firm consisting of three partners, namely, Shri Puneet Tandon, Shri Sumit Tandan and Smt. Sharda Tandaon. Shri Sumit Tandon was retired from the partnership firm on 31.03.2015. Therefore, the entire responsibility came to Shri Puneet Tandon and Smt. Sharda Tandon. However, Smt. Sharda Tandon was a senior citizen and was suffering from cancer and had also undergone surgery twice due to cancer. Even Shri Puneet Tandon is also suffering from depressive disorder and during the month of May and June, he was seriously ill for which he could not give instructions to the counsel. She accordingly submitted that due to this unavoidable circumstances, there is a delay in filing of the appeal before the Tribunal.

4.

After hearing the rival contentions made by both the sides, the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee is condoned.

5.

The ld. counsel for the assessee, at the outset, filed the copy of the order of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case vide order dated 22nd July, 2019 and submitted that the quantum addition has been restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. Therefore, the penalty does not survive. She accordingly submitted that the penalty so levied by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the CIT(A) should be cancelled.

6.

The ld. DR, on the other hand, supported the order of the Assessing Officer and CIT(A).

7.

I have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides and perused the material available on record. A perusal of the order of the Tribunal shows that the quantum addition has been restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for deciding the issue afresh. Therefore, the penalty so levied by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the CIT(A) does not survive and therefore the same is cancelled. However, the Assessing Officer is at liberty to initiate penalty proceedings after the matter is decided by him in the set aside proceedings.

8.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. The decision was pronounced in the open court on 01.08.2019.

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 →