VARJU INVESTMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED,SURAT vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX CIRCLE -2(1) (1), CURRENT JURIS-DCIT CIRCLE2(1) (1) SURAT, SURAT
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against an order confirming a penalty under section 271(1)(c). The penalty was levied based on quantum additions made under section 68, treating share capital as bogus income. The appeal against the quantum additions was pending before the CIT(A).
Held
The Tribunal held that the decision in the quantum appeal would impact the penalty order. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) to be decided along with the appeal relating to the quantum additions.
Key Issues
Whether the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) is sustainable when the appeal against the underlying quantum additions is pending before the CIT(A).
Sections Cited
271(1)(c), 68, 143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SURAT BENCH, SURAT
Before: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth
THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT Before: Shri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member And Shri Bijayananda Pruseth , Accountant Member ITA No. 622 /Srt/2024 Assessment Year 2013-14
Varju Investments Pvt. The DCIT, Ltd. Block No. 1 & 12 to Circle-2(1)(1) 16, Village Karanj, Taluka Vs Surat Mandvi Karanj, Surat (Respondent) PAN: AAACV7157L (Appellant)
Assessee by: Ms. Himali Mistry, A.R. Revenue by: Shri Ashish Pophare, CIT-D.R. Date of hearing : 03-03-2025 Date of pronouncement : 28-03-2025 आदेश/ORDER Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member:- The present appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] dated 26.03.2024 arising from the order passed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (here-in-after referred to as “the Act”) relevant to the Assessment Year 2012-13.
I.T.A No. 622/Srt/2024 Varju Investments Pvt. Ltd., A.Y. 2013-14
The assessee in this appeal is aggrieved by the action of the Assessing Officer in confirming the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act.
At the outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee has stated that the impugned penalty has been levied by the Assessing Officer on the basis of quantum additions made by the Assessing Officer u/s. 68 of the Income Tax Act in the assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act by treating the share capital received by the assessee as bogus and thereby adding the same as income of the assessee from undisclosed sources. The ld. counsel for the assessee has submitted that the appeal against the quantum additions is still pending before the CIT(A). She has further submitted that decision arrived by the CIT(A) in the quantum appeal will have bearing on the order of levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. She therefore submitted that the matter be restored to the file of CIT(A) to be decided along with the appeal of the assessee relating to quantum additions vide appeal no. CIT(A), Surat-2/10287/2016-17.
In view of the above facts and circumstances, the impugned order of the CIT(A) is set aside, the matter is restored back to the file of CIT(A) with a direction to decide the issue of levy of penalty along with the appeal of the assessee agitating the quantum additions. Thus, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
I.T.A No. 622/Srt/2024 Varju Investments Pvt. Ltd., A.Y. 2013-14
In the result, the appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 28-03-2025
Sd/- Sd/- (BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH) (SANJAY GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad : Dated: 28/03/2025 आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. Concerned CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, Surat 6. Guard file. By order // True Copy // Assistant Registrar, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Surat
