DALAS BIOTECH LTD.,ALWAR vs. ACIT, ALWAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 740/JPR/2015Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 February 2017AY 2010-114 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, relying on various judicial pronouncements and a similar order by the CIT(A), set aside the penalty order. The AO was directed to delete the penalty imposed.

What were the facts?

The assessee's case was selected for scrutiny assessment, resulting in additions to income and initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(b). The CIT(A) partly deleted the penalty, and the assessee appealed further.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the legality and justification of the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(b) for non-compliance during assessment proceedings.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(b),Section 274,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR

Before: SHRI BHAGCHAND, AM & SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 740/JP/2015

PER SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM.

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of ld. CIT (Appeals),

Alwar dated 27.08.2015 pertaining to A.Y. 2010-11. The assessee has raised the

following grounds of appeal :-

1.

In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT (A) has erred in sustaining the penalty order u/s 271(1)(b) passed by the Asstt. Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-2, Alwar. The action of the ld. CIT (A) is illegal, arbitrary, unjustified and against the facts of the case.

2.

In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT (A) has erred in confirming the action of the ld. ACIT, Circle-2, Alwar in imposing the penalty to the extent of R. 20,000/- out of R. 40,000/-.

2 ITA No. 740/JP/2015 M/s. Dalas Biotech Ltd.

2.

Briefly stated the facts are that the case of the assessee was picked up for

scrutiny assessment and the assessment under section 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961

(hereinafter referred to as the Act) was framed vide order dated 28.03.2013. While

framing the assessment, the AO made various additions/disallowances thereby

assessed the total income of the assessee at Rs. 4,65,94,491/- against the declared

income of Rs. 3,78,83,890/- and initiated penalty proceedings. Subsequently, the

AO vide order dated 30.09.2013 passed under section 271(1)(b) read with section

274 of the Act levied penalty of Rs. 40,000/-. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee

carried the matter before ld. CIT (A), who after considering the submissions, partly

deleted the penalty.

3.

Now the assessee is in appeal before us.

4.

At the time of hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee though the

notice of hearing was duly served on the Counsel of the assessee.

4.1. The ld. D/R supported the orders of the authorities below.

4.2. We have heard ld. D/R and considered the material available on record and

gone through the orders of the lower authorities. It transpired from the record that

the assessee has participated in the proceedings and the assessment was not

passed ex parte. The ld. Counsel for the assessee placed reliance on the various

judicial pronouncements of the Hon’ble High Court and Coordinate Bench of the

Tribunal in support of its case that penalty is not leviable. In the written submission

placed on record, the ld. Counsel placed reliance on the order of ld. CIT (A), Alwar

dated 18.08.2015 for the A.Y. 2010-11 in the case of M/s. Ujala Pumps Pvt. Ltd.

exactly on similar issue, wherein the ld. CIT (A) deleted the penalty. The ld. D/R has

not brought on record any contrary material supporting the orders of the authorities

3 ITA No. 740/JP/2015 M/s. Dalas Biotech Ltd.

below. Under these facts, considering the judgment relied on by the assessee in the

case of Akhil Bhartiya Prathmik Shikshak Sangh Bjhawan Trust vs. Assistant Director

of Income Tax, 115 TTJ 419 (Del.) and the orders of the Coordinate Bench in the

case of M/s. Zunzubhai P. Patel, Surat vs. AO in ITA No. 3194/Ahd/2009 dated

13.05.2011 and also order of ld. CIT (A) dated 18.08.2015 on similar issue, we set

aside the order of ld. CIT (A) and direct the AO to delete the penalty.

5.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Order is pronounced in the open court on 07.02.2017.

Sd/- Sd/- ( HkkxpUn ½ ( dqy Hkkjr) ( BHAGCHAND) ( KUL BHARAT ) ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member Jaipur Dated:- 07/02/2017. Das/

आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेषित@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू

1.

The Appellant- M/s. Dalas Biotech Ltd., Bhiwadi. 2. The Respondent –The ACIT Circle-2, Alwar. 3. The CIT(A). 4. The CIT, 5. The DR, ITAT, Jaipur 6. Guard File (ITA No. 740/JP/2015)

vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,

सहायक पंजीकार@ Aेेपेजंदज. त्महपेजतंत

4 ITA No. 740/JP/2015 M/s. Dalas Biotech Ltd.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(b)

All 2,912 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(b) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →