RITU SUBASH CIPY,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2180/PUN/2016Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 October 2018AY 2009-103 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that since the quantum addition, which formed the basis for the penalty, had been deleted by a previous order of the Tribunal, the penalty was not sustainable. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was against a penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act. The penalty was based on an addition made by the Assessing Officer due to a difference in ITS data.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether a penalty under section 271(1)(c) could be sustained when the underlying addition giving rise to the penalty was deleted.

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, PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE

For Appellant: Shri D.R. Barve
For Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Ghei
Hearing: 25.10.2018Pronounced: 31.10.2018

आदेश / ORDER

PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM:

The appeal filed by assessee is against order of CIT(A)-9, Pune, dated 28.06.2016 relating to assessment year 2009-10 against levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’).

ITA No.2180/PUN/2016 2 Ritu Subash Cipy

2.

The assessee has raised the following ground of appeal:-

1) The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-9, Pune, has erred in upholding the decision of AO and confirming the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 amounting to Rs.77,420/-, even though factually all the relevant details were made available during the course of assessment proceedings and there was no “concealment of income” as well as “submission of wrong particulars”. Therefore, the unwarranted penalty of Rs.77,420/- needs cancellation.

3.

The issue raised in the present appeal is against penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act.

4.

The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee pointed out that the quantum addition has been deleted by Tribunal and consequent thereto, there is no merit in levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act.

5.

The learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue fairly admitted that quantum addition has been deleted by Tribunal.

6.

We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. The sole addition made in the hands of assessee was on account of difference in ITS data of ₹ 2,27,773/-. The Assessing Officer had initiated penalty proceedings against the said addition. However, the Tribunal in ITA No.1816/PUN/2014, relating to assessment year 2009-10, vide order dated 05.05.2017 has deleted the addition made in the hands of assessee. Meanwhile, the Assessing Officer had levied penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act which has been confirmed by CIT(A). Since the basis for levy of penalty do not stand, there is no merit in

ITA No.2180/PUN/2016 3 Ritu Subash Cipy

the aforesaid levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Accordingly, the same is deleted. The ground of appeal raised by assessee is thus, allowed.

7.

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced on this 31st day of October, 2018.

Sd/- Sd/- (D.KARUNAKARA RAO) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) ऱेखा सदस्य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER न्याययक सदस्य / JUDICIAL MEMBER ऩुणे / Pune; ददनाांक Dated : 31st October, 2018. GCVSR आदेश की प्रयिलऱपप अग्रेपषि/Copy of the Order is forwarded to : 1. अऩीऱाथी / The Appellant; 2. प्रत्यथी / The Respondent; 3. आयकर आयुक्त(अऩीऱ) / The CIT(A)-9, Pune; 4. The Pr.CIT-5, Pune; ववभागीय प्रतततनधध, आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण, ऩुणे “ए” / DR 5. ‘A’, ITAT, Pune; 6. गार्ड पाईऱ / Guard file. आदेशािुसार/ BY ORDER, सत्यावऩत प्रतत //True Copy// वररष्ठ तनजी सधिव / Sr. Private Secretary आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण ,ऩुणे / 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 →