M/S. SHIVA RUBBER INDUSTRIES,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, GURGAON

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4897/DEL/2015Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 September 2018AY 2006-075 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the penalty order, being based on an assessment that was partially deleted, could not sustain in toto. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer made an addition on account of unexplained sundry creditors. The CIT(A) partially deleted this addition in the original assessment. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer imposed a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) without giving effect to the CIT(A)'s order.

What were the issues?

Whether a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be sustained when the underlying assessment order has been partially deleted by the appellate authority. Whether the Assessing Officer correctly gave effect to the CIT(A)'s order before imposing penalty.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

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

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘G’ NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI R. K. PANDA & MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv
Hearing: 13.09.2018Pronounced: 17.09.2018

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 03/06/2015 passed by CIT (A)-1, Gurgaon, for Assessment Year 2006-07.

2.

The grounds of appeal are as under:-

1. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in imposing penalty of Rs. 1,13,830/- u/s 271(l)(c) and that too without recording the mandatory “satisfaction

2. That in any view of the matter and in any case, action of Ld. CIT (A) in confirming the action of Ld. AO in framing the impugned penalty order which is beyond jurisdiction, illegal, in violation of principles of natural justice, by recording incorrect facts and findings, barred by limitation, contrary to the law and facts and deserves to be quashed.

3. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A)

has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in levying the penalty u/s 271(l)(c) and passing the impugned penalty order in as much as the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) dated 29-12-2008 is in violation of principles of natural justice, beyond jurisdiction, barred by limitation, contrary to law and facts, unjustified, illegal, void ab-initio and without giving adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

4.

That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in levying the penalty u/s 271(l)(c) and in making addition in the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) dated 29-12-2008 as these additions are also contrary to law and facts, unjustified, illegal and void ab initio.

5. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in levying the penalty and passing the impugned penalty order that too without complying with the directions given by Ld. CIT(A) while deciding the appeal of the assessee in quantum proceedings.

6. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in levying the penalty u/s 271(l)(c) that too without serving the appeal effect order to the assessee.

7. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in levying the penalty and passing the impugned order that too without discharging his burden as envisaged under the law of proving concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars by the assessee.”

3.

Assessment was framed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 29/12/2008. The Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.24,82,871/- on account of 15 unexplained Sundry Creditors. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A) and the CIT(A) has given a direction to the Assessing Officer to verify certain creditors after deleting addition of Rs.20,40,399/-. The Assessing Officer yet not given the effect of order of the CIT(A) dated 16/09/2009 passed in the original assessment order. In the meanwhile, the Assessing Officer imposed the penalty of Rs.1,13,830/- u/s 271 (1)(c) of the Income Tax Act.

4. Being aggrieved by the penalty order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee without taking the cognizance of the partial deletion of the addition made by the CIT(A) regarding original assessment order.

5.

The Ld. AR submitted that since in the original assessment u/s 143(3)/147 of the Act, the CIT(A) deleted the addition of Rs.20,40,399/-, the Assessing Officer should have given the effect of the said order and accordingly should have passed penalty order. Therefore, this penalty order has to be deleted.

6.

The Ld. DR relied upon the order of the CIT(A) as well as of the penalty order.

7.

We have heard both the parties and perused all relevant material available on record. The original assessment order passed u/s 143(3)/147 has been partially confirmed by the CIT(A) and addition of Rs.20,40,399/- was deleted. Thus, the penalty for original assessment order does not sustain in toto but partially. Therefore, it will be appropriate to remand back this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer as there is no order giving effect to the CIT(A)’s order. The matter is remanded back to the file of the Assessing Officer. Needless to say, the assessee be given opportunity of hearing by following principles of natural justice.

8.

In result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 17th September, 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 →