ASHUTOSH AGARWAL,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, WARD- 1(1), GHAZIABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5707/DEL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 October 2018AY 2012-134 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 quantum appeal was restored to the Assessing Officer, the penalty order also does not survive. Therefore, the penalty proceedings were also restored to the file of the Assessing Officer.

What were the facts?

The assessee challenged a penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The CIT(A) had dismissed the assessee's appeal ex parte. The quantum appeal for the same assessment year had been restored to the Assessing Officer by the ITAT.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty proceedings survive when the related quantum appeal is restored to the Assessing Officer.

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 BENCH SMC NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL, HON’BLE & SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVAShri Ashutosh Agarwal, vs Income Tax Officer,

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, CA, Ms Rinkky Sharma, CA
For Respondent: Shri Surendra Meena, Sr. DR
Hearing: 05.10.2018Pronounced: 09.10.2018

order dated 5.7.2018 passed by the Ld. CIT (Appeals), Ghaziabad for A.Y. 2012-13 wherein the assessee had challenged the imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") amounting to Rs. 1,67,010/- and vide the impugned order, the Ld. CIT (A) has dismissed the assessee’s appeal ex parte.

2.0 At the outset, the Ld. AR placed on record a copy of the order of the ITAT in the quantum appeal preferred by the assessee for assessment year 2012-13 in and submitted that vide order dated 14.09.2018, the ITAT has restored the quantum appeal to the file of the Assessing Officer.

It was submitted that since the quantum appeal has been restored to the file of the Assessing Officer, the penalty order also does not survive.

3.

The Ld. Sr. DR had no objection to the present appeal also being restored to the file of the Assessing Officer.

4.

In view of the fact that the quantum appeal has been restored to the file of the Assessing Officer, it will be in the fitness of things that the penalty appeal is also restored to the file of the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, we restore the penalty proceedings also to the file of the Assessing Officer.

5.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on 9th October, 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 →