SUNITA DEVI BRIJIMOHAN TAPARIA,AHMEDNAGAR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2606/PUN/2016Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 October 2018AY 2005-063 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal had previously held the reassessment order, which formed the basis for the penalty, to be invalid. Since the substratum for the penalty levy was eroded, the penalty was liable to be deleted.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was against a penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, related to an addition of Rs. 16,00,000/- on account of unexplained investment. This addition was made during reassessment proceedings.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) could survive when the reassessment proceedings, on which the addition was based, were declared invalid by the Tribunal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

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

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, PUNE

Before: SHRI R.S. SYAL, VP & SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM

For Appellant: Shri Pushpak B. Mundada
For Respondent: Shri Pankaj Garg
Hearing: 29.10.2018Pronounced: 29.10.2018

आदेश / ORDER

PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Pune dated 22.07.2016 for the assessment year 2005-06 against confirming the levy of penalty u/s. 271(1) (c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

2 ITA No.2606/PUN/2016 A.Y.2005-06

2.

Shri Pushpak B. Mundada appearing on behalf of the assessee

submitted at the outset that penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act was levied in

respect of addition of Rs.16,00,000/- on account of unexplained investment

in re-assessment proceedings. The assessee challenged the validity of re-

assessment proceedings along with additions on merit before the

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). However, the assessee was

unsuccessful. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal

in ITA No.308/PN/2015. The Tribunal vide order dated 05.08.2016 held the

re-assessment order passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Act as invalid.

Penalty vide order 26.03.2015 u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act was levied in respect

of addition made in re-assessment proceedings. Now, that the re-

assessment proceedings have been held to be bad in law by the Tribunal,

hence, penalty is liable to be deleted. The ld. AR furnished a copy of order of

the Tribunal in ITA No. 308/PN/2015 for assessment year 2005-06 decided

on 05.08.2016.

3.

Shri Pankaj Garg representing the Department fairly admitted that

the Tribunal had set aside the assessment order passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s.

147 of the Act.

4.

Both sides heard. Orders of the Authorities below perused. Penalty

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act has been levied in respect of addition of

Rs.16,00,000/- made during re-assessment proceedings. The Tribunal in

assessee’s appeal in ITA No.308/PN/2015(supra.) has held the

reassessment order dated 22.12.2009 passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the

Act as invalid. Since, the substratum for levy of penalty has been eroded;

3 ITA No.2606/PUN/2016 A.Y.2005-06

penalty arising from the addition does not survive. Accordingly, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed.

5.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in open Court after hearing on Monday, the 29th day of October, 2018.

Sd/- Sd/- R. S. SYAL VIKAS AWASTHY VICE-PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER

पुणे / Pune; �दनांक / Dated : 29th October, 2018 SB आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of the Order forwarded to :

अपीलाथ� / The Appellant. 1. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 2. 3. The CIT(Appeals)-2, Pune. 4. The Pr. CIT-1, Pune. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, “बी” ब�च, 5. पुणे / DR, ITAT, “B” Bench, Pune. गाड� फ़ाइल / Guard File. 6.

// True Copy // आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER,

�नजी स�चव / Private Secretary आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.

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 →