RSRG DEVBUILD P. LTD,INDORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 4(1), INDORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 692/IND/2024Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 March 2025AY 2014-153 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted the submissions of both the assessee and the revenue. The assessee contended that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is consequential to the addition made in the assessment order, and since the appeal against the assessment order (Quantum Appeal) is pending before the CIT(A), the penalty appeal should also be remanded for fresh adjudication based on the outcome of the Quantum Appeal. The revenue's representative agreed with this submission. In view of the consensus between the parties, the Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudication afresh based on the outcome of the assessee's Quantum Appeal. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, RSRG Devbuild Pvt. Ltd., is in appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Indore Bench, against an order dated 09.09.2024 passed by the CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi. This order arose from a penalty order dated 07.09.2022 passed by the ITO-4(1), Indore, under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2014-15. The penalty of Rs. 24,72,000/- was imposed for an addition of Rs. 80,00,000/- made in the assessment order dated 30.03.2022 under Section 144/147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act. The assessee's appeal against the assessment order (Quantum Appeal) is still pending before the CIT(A). The assessee requested that the penalty appeal be remanded for fresh adjudication based on the outcome of the Quantum Appeal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, should be adjudicated afresh based on the outcome of the pending quantum appeal against the assessment order. Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is consequential to the addition made in the assessment order. Since the appeal against the assessment order (Quantum Appeal) is still pending before the CIT(A), the present appeal concerning the penalty should also be remanded back to the CIT(A) for adjudication afresh after the outcome of the Quantum Appeal is decided. Revenue's Contention: The learned Senior Departmental Representative for the revenue agreed with the submission made by the learned Authorized Representative for the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 144,Section 147,Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE

Before: SHRI B.M. BIYANI

For Appellant: Shri S.S. Deshpande, AR
For Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR
Hearing: 20.03.2025Pronounced: 20.03.2025

आदेश/ O R D E R

Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.:

1.

Feeling aggrieved by order of first-appeal dated 09.09.2024 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of penalty-order dated 07.09.2022 passed by learned ITO- 4(1), Indore [“AO”] u/s 271(1)(c) of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2014-15, the assessee has filed this appeal on the grounds mentioned in Appeal Memo (Form No. 36).

2.

Although Ld. AR for assessee filed an adjournment request in writing but at the time of hearing, he prayed to allow withdrawal of same and proceed for hearing of case on today itself. The request of Ld. AR is accepted and the hearing is proceeded.

3.

Ld. AR next submitted that the present appeal assails the penalty of Rs. 24,72,000/- imposed by AO u/s 271(1)(c) and upheld by CIT(A). He submitted that the said penalty had been imposed by AO for the addition of Rs. 80,00,000/- made in assessment-order dated 30.03.2022 u/s 144/147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act. He submitted that the assessee’s appeal against assessment-order [hereafter referred to as “Quantum-Appeal”] is still pending before CIT(A) and since the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is consequential to the addition made in assessment-order, this matter should also be remanded back to the file of CIT(A) for adjudication afresh on the basis of outcome of Quantum-Appeal.

4.

Ld. DR for revenue agrees to the submission of Ld. AR.

5.

In view of above submissions-cum-consensus of parties, we restore this matter at the level of CIT(A) for adjudication afresh on the basis of outcome of Quantum-Appeal of assessee.

6.

Resultantly, this appeal is allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in open court immediately after conclusion of hearing and subsequently reduced in writing on the very same day.

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 →