AMAN TANNERY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 29(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) relied on findings from a subsequent assessment year where a co-ordinate bench had restored the quantum issue back to the AO for fresh verification. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the AO to re-adjudicate the penalty in light of the final conclusion in the other assessment year's quantum issue.
What were the facts?
The assessee claimed depreciation on a pollution control unit, which was disallowed as the vendor denied supplying the equipment. This led to a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.
What were the issues?
Whether the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) was justified, considering the pending adjudication of the related quantum issue in another assessment year.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA BENCH “B” KOLKATA
Before: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini
O R D E R
PER S.S.Godara, Judicial Member:
- This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2013-14 arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-8 Kolkata’s order dated 28.06.2018 passed in case No. CIT(A),Kolkata-8/10190/2016-17, confirming the Assessing Officer’s action imposing penalty of ₹30,15,402/- in order dated 19.09.2016 in proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; ‘the Act’. Case called twice. None appears at assessee’s behest. It is accordingly proceeded ex parte.
We have heard the learned departmental representative strongly supporting the impugned penalty of ₹9,31,759/- imposed in both the lower proceedings on the ground that the assessee’s depreciation claim of Aman Tannery Vs. ITO Wd-29(1), Kol. Page 2 ₹30,15,402/- qua its pollution control unit had been disallowed during the course of regular assessment for the reason that the vendor concerned M/s Toronto Enterprise denied to have supplied any such equipment to this taxpayer. It is in view of the said findings; which have attained finality, that the Assessing Officer as well as CIT(A) hold the assessee to have furnished inaccurate particulars of income.
Ms Biswas vehemently contended during the course of hearing that the lower authorizes have rightly penalised the assessee on account of its action having raised bogus depreciation claim of ₹30,15,402/-. She also took us to CIT(A)’s detailed discussion placing reliance on his identical findings in case of yet another party M/s Kasa Dwelling Pvt. Ltd. in assessment year 2014-15. Case fie indicates that the assessee had filed its quantum appeal in the said succeeding assessment on the very issue. A co-ordinate bench’s order dated 21.08.2018 has restored the same back to the Assessing Officer for afresh factual verification. Learned departmental representative fails to dispute that the CIT(A) has mainly relied upon his findings in assessment year 2014-15 only for confirming the impugned penalty. We therefore deem it appropriate to follow the very course of action herein as well. The Assessing Officer is directed to re-adjudicate the instant sole issue of correctness of penalty proceedings in the light of his final conclusion in the other assessment year’s quantum issue.
This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms. Order pronounced in the open court 23/12/2019 Sd/- Sd/- (लेखा सद&य) (�या(यक सद&य) ( A.L.Saini) (S.S.Godara) (Accountant Member) (Judicial Member) Kolkata, *Dkp )दनांकः- 23/12/2019 कोलकाता ।
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