AL TABARAK FROZEN FOODS P. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE, GHAZIABAD
What did the Tribunal hold?
Since the basis for the penalty (quantum addition) was nullified, the penalty order was also set aside. The matter was remanded back to the AO.
What were the facts?
The assessee appealed against a penalty order. The penalty was levied based on a quantum addition which was subsequently set aside by the ITAT.
What were the issues?
Whether a penalty can be sustained when the underlying addition on which it was based has been set aside.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘D’, NEW DELHI
ORDER
Per N. K. Saini, AM:
This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 15.12.2017 of ld. CIT(A), Aligarh.
The only grievance of the assessee in this appeal relates to the confirmation of penalty of Rs.6,79,800/- levied by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
During the course of hearing, the ld. Counsel for the assessee at the very outset stated that the quantum addition on the basis of which the impugned penalty was levied by the AO and sustained by the ld. CIT(A) has been set aside to the file of the AO by the ITAT Bench ‘SMC’, New Delhi in for the assessment year 2010-11 in assessee’s own case vide order dated 20.06.2018 (copy of the said order was furnished which is placed
Al Tabarak Frozen Foods P. Ltd. on record). The aforesaid contention of the ld. Counsel for the assessee was not controverted by the ld. Sr. DR.
We have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused the material available on the record. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the quantum addition on the basis of which the impugned penalty was levied by the AO has been set aside by the ITAT Bench “SMC”, New Delhi vide order dated 20.06.2018 in for the assessment year 2010-11. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the file of the AO to be decided after considering the outcome of the aforesaid referred to appeal.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. (Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 24/09/2018)
More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
- Shalin Jayantbhai Desai, Vadodara vs ACIT, Circle-4(2), Vadodara Present…ITA 2569/AHD/2026[2010-11]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2010-11
- Neo Structo Construction P. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs The Pr. CIT- 3, AhmedabadITA 1216/AHD/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2370/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2369/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Dwaraka Jewellers, Bhubaneswar vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S N D Waddar And Co vs. Sri Gaurav GuptaKarnataka · 30 Oct 2026
- Kanwar Enterprises Private Limited vs. The Joint Commissioner - State TaxTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S. Bangi Mines And Minerals vs. The State Of TelanganaTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S. Arka Business Solutions vs. Principal Commissioner Of CustomsTelangana · 30 Oct 2026