DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 7, PUNE, PUNE vs. TIETO INDIA P LTD, PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 425/PUN/2020Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 June 2022AY 2010-20113 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that since the quantum appeal was remanded, the penalty order does not survive. Therefore, the issue of penalty is also remanded to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order deleting the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c). The quantum appeal for the same assessment year was remanded to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) can survive when the underlying quantum appeal is remanded for re-adjudication.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 275(1A)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, PUNE

Before: SHRI R.S. SYAL & SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI

For Appellant: Shri Siddhesh Chaugule
For Respondent: Shri M.G. Jasnani

आदेश / ORDER

PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM :

1.

This appeal by the Revenue against the order dated 28-01-2020 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Pune [‘CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2010-11.

2.

We note that this appeal was filed with a delay of 80 days. After hearing both the parties, we find that the reasons stated by the assessee are bonafide which really prevented the assessee to file the present appeal in time. Therefore, the delay of 80 days are condoned.

3.

The appellant-revenue raised three grounds of appeal amongst which the only issue emanates for our consideration is as to whether the CIT(A) justified in deleting the penalty levied by the AO u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act on account of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.

4. At the outset, we note that the quantum appeal in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2010-11 in has been remanded to the file of CIT(A) for re-adjudication in view of the issue of Management Service Fee being covered by APA vide its order dated 19-01-2018. We find the said order of which is at Page No. 1 of the paper book of assessee. The CIT(A) in the impugned order at Para No. 2.4 taking into consideration the fact of remanding the issue by the ITAT deleted the penalty imposed by the AO u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act by holding when the quantum is no more in existence the penalty does not survive. The ld. AR prayed to remand the issue to the file of CIT(A) and drew our attention to the provisions of section 275(1A) of the Act. We note that sub-section (1A) of section 275 explains where the relevant assessment or other order is the subject matter of appeal to CIT(A), ITAT, High Court and Supreme Court is passed, an order imposing or enhancing or reducing or cancelling penalty or dropping the proceedings for the imposition of penalty is to be passed on the basis of assessment as revised by giving effect to such order of CIT(A), ITAT, High Court, Supreme Court or section 263 or 264 of the Act. Therefore, there is no dispute regarding the remanding the issue of Management Service Fee to the file of CIT(A) for re-adjudication in terms of APA. Therefore, we deem it proper to remand the issue to the file of CIT(A). The assessee is liberty to file evidence, if any, in support of its claim. Thus, the grounds raised by the Revenue fails and are dismissed.

5.

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 13th June, 2022.

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 →