SHRI TARIQRASHID M. MUNSHI,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-5(2)(4), AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 585/AHD/2019Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 February 2022AY 2012-133 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 held that since the additions made in the quantum proceedings were restored back to the Assessing Officer by a higher tribunal, the penalty did not survive. Therefore, the penalty order was set aside.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer made additions for unexplained cash credit, creditors, and capital. Penalty proceedings were initiated, and the Assessing Officer levied a penalty. The CIT(A) confirmed the penalty.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be sustained when the underlying additions have been restored back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 147,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD “B” BENCH

Before: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri TR Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Ms. Rachana Khandhar, A.R
For Respondent: Shri J L Bhatia, Sr. D.R

Appellant by : Ms. Rachana Khandhar, A.R. Respondent by : Shri J L Bhatia, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing : 10-02-2022 Date of pronouncement : 15-02-2022 आदेश/ORDER PER : ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:-

The present appeal has been filed by the Assessee for confirming the levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Ahmedabad, (in short referred to as CIT(A)), dated 27-03-2019, u/s. 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) pertaining to Assessment Year (A.Y) 2012-13.

2.

At the outset itself, ld. D.R. mentioned that in the quantum proceedings relating to the assessee for the impugned year before the ITAT, all the additions were restored back to the A.O. adjudication afresh. He conceded Page No 2 Shri Tariqrashid M. Munshi vs. ITO therefore that in the circumstances the penalty did not survive. Copy of the order of the ITAT in dated 13.12.2020 was placed before us. In this backdrop, we shall proceed to adjudicate the present appeal before us.

3.

Brief facts being that in the assessment proceedings u/s. 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act, the following additions were made: (i) Unexplained Cash credit of Rs. 33,31,563/- (ii) Unexplained Creditors of Rs. 3,04,500/- (iii) Unexplained addition in capital of Rs. 1,40,285/-.

3.1 Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) were also initiated. The penalty proceedings remained unattended on behalf of the assessee and the A.O., noting that the impugned additions stood confirmed by the First Appellate Authority,i.e Ld. CIT(A), held that it was a fit case for levy of penalty since the assessee had knowingly and deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars of income within the meaning of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Accordingly penalty @ 100% of the tax evaded on the aforestated additions amounting to Rs. 11,66,892/- was levied on the assessee.

4.

The assessee preferred appeal against this order of the A.O. before the Ld. CIT(A) wherein also we have noted that the proceedings remained unattended on behalf of the assessee and accordingly the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the order of the A.O. Before us, since the fact of the additions made in the quantum proceedings having been restored back to the A.O. by the ITAT have been brought to our notice, the additions as on date no longer survive and therefore as rightly admitted by the Ld. D.R. there was no case for levy of penalty in the Page No 3 Shri Tariqrashid M. Munshi vs. ITO facts and circumstances. The order passed by the A.O. levying penalty of Rs. 11,66,892/- is therefore set aside and appeal of the Assessee is allowed.

5.

In effect, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed.

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 →