ACIT, NCC-1, MADURAI vs. M/S. THE VIKAS ACADEMY, MADURAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 56/CHNY/2020Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 May 2020AY 2009-104 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 upheld the order of the CIT(A) in deleting the penalty. This was because the quantum addition itself had been deleted by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the assessee's own case.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the deletion of penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) by the CIT(A). The original addition was made under Section 45(4) regarding transfer of shares of an outgoing partner.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be sustained when the underlying addition has been deleted by a higher court. The validity of an addition made under Section 45(4) in the context of partner's share transfer.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 45(4)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI S. JAYARAMAN

Hearing: 13.05.2020Pronounced: 13.05.2020

PER GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

1.

This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Madurai in dated 18.10.2019 for the Assessment Year 2009-10 against the deletion of the penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

2.

Ms. Anitha, JCIT represented on behalf of the Revenue and Mr. B. Ramakrishnan, Chartered Accountant represented on behalf of the Assessee.

3.

It was submitted by the learned Departmental Representative that an addition had been made in the course of the assessment by invoking the provisions of Section 45(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of the transfer of the shares of the out-going partner. It was a submission that the issue had been taken by the assessee in appeal before the learned Tribunal which had held the issue in favour of the Revenue. It was further a submission that the assessee had filed a Tax Case Appeal No.716/2015 which came to be disposed of by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Madras vide order dated 16.09.2019, wherein the issue had been held in favour of the assessee. It was a submission that consequent to the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Madras in the case of the assessee for the relevant assessment year deleting the addition, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had deleted the penalty levied vide his order dated 08.10.2019. It was a submission by the learned Departmental Representative that the Revenue has not accepted the order of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the Tax Case Appeal No.716/2015 and the appeal has been 3 -: preferred before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It was a submission that the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was liable to be reversed.

4.

In reply, the learned Authorized Representative submitted that the quantum addition has been deleted by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the Tax Case Appeal referred to above in the assessee’s own case. It was a submission that consequently the penalty as levied is liable to be deleted and the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has rightly done so. The learned Authorized Representative vehemently supported the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).

5.

We have considered the rival submission and perused the materials available on record.

6.

A perusal of the order of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the assessee’s own case in the Tax Case Appeal No.716/2015 dated 16.09.2019 shows that the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court has followed its earlier order in the case of National Company Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax in Tax Case Appeal Nos.365 & 366 of 2009 dated 08.04.2019 and has held the issue in respect of the transfer contemplated u/s.45(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in favour of the 4 -: assessee. A perusal of the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) shows that he has considered the fact that the quantum addition has been deleted by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the assessee’s own case for the relevant assessment year and as the quantum addition itself no more exists has deleted the penalty. This being so, we find no error in the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) which calls for any interference.

7.

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in I.T.A.No.56/Chny/2020 stands dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 13th May, 2020 in Chennai.

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 →