M/S. STANDARD BRANDS LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4556/DEL/2014Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 October 2018AY 2006-073 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) with a direction to decide the penalty afresh after deciding the quantum appeal. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c). The appeal against the quantum additions was still pending before the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be decided before the quantum additions are finalized. The propriety of levying penalty when the primary additions are under dispute.

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 ‘G’ BENCH,

For Appellant: Shri Ashutosh Rajat, Adv
Hearing: 29.10.2018Pronounced: 31.10.2018

PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER,

1.

This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the CIT(A)-XI dated 20.06.2014 pertaining to A.Y 2006-07.

2.

The solitary grievance of the assessee is that the CIT(A) erred in upholding the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'].

3.

At the very outset, the ld. AR pointed out that the appeal against quantum additions is pending before the CIT(A). This being the fact of the matter, we restore this appeal to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to decide the levy of penalty afresh after deciding the quantum appeal.

4.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in is allowed for statistical purposes.

The order is pronounced in the open court on 31.10.2018.

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 →