ARIEF NAGOOR ARIEF,CHENNAI vs. DCIT NON CORP CIRCLE 11, CHENNAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the levy of penalty under Section 271D needs to be re-examined in light of the remittance of the quantum addition. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
What were the facts?
The Assessing Officer made an addition under Section 68 and levied penalty under Section 271D. The assessee argued that since the quantum addition under Section 68 was remitted back to the Assessing Officer by the Tribunal, the penalty under Section 271D should not be sustained.
What were the issues?
Whether penalty under Section 271D can be levied when the underlying addition under Section 68 has been remitted back for reconsideration.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN & SHRI S. JAYARAMAN
आदेश /O R D E R
PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -13, Chennai, dated 02.02.2018, confirming the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer under Section 271D of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') for the assessment year 2013-14.
Shri T. Vasudevan, the Ld.counsel for the assessee, submitted that in the quantum addition made by the Assessing Officer under Section 68 of the Act, this Tribunal remitted back the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for reconsideration. According to the Ld. counsel, when the Assessing Officer disbelieved the claim of the assessee that funds were received from various persons and addition was made under Section 68 of the Act treating the same as the assessee’s own money, the provisions of Section 269SS of the Act cannot be applied consequentially. Therefore, according to the Ld. counsel, there cannot be any levy of penalty under Section 271D of the Act. Moreover, this Tribunal set aside the orders of the authorities below in the quantum appeal and remitted back the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for reconsideration. Therefore, according to the Ld. counsel, at this stage, it cannot be said that there was violation of Section 269SS of the Act which warrants levy of penalty under Section 271D of the Act.
We heard Dr. S. Pandian, the Ld. Departmental Representative also. It is not in dispute that the Assessing Officer made disallowance under Section 68 of the Act treating the funds said to be received by the assessee from others as the assessee’s own funds and also levied penalty under Section 271D of the Act. The assessee now claims that this Tribunal remitted back the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for reconsideration with regard to quantum addition under Section 68 of the Act. In those factual circumstances, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the levy of penalty under Section 271D of the Act needs to be re-examined. Accordingly, orders of both the authorities below are set aside and the issue of levy of penalty under Section 271D of the Act is remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer shall re-examine the matter in the light of the material that may be filed by the assessee and thereafter decide the issue afresh in accordance with law, after giving a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the court on 1st August, 2019 at Chennai.
More judgments on Section 68
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Bliss Dealtrade Private Limited, Kolkata vs Income Tax Officer - Ward 9(2) Kolkata…ITA 208/KOL/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-13
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- 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
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Shivam Tiles House vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- Imtiyaz Shaikh Z Chorlekar vs. Salman ShaikhBombay · 21 Oct 2026
- Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University Thr Its Registrar Prashant S Amrutkar vs. Union Of INDIA Thr The Secretary And OthersBombay · 19 Oct 2026
- Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University Thr Registrar Prashant S Amrutkar vs. Union Of INDIA Thr Secretary And OthersBombay · 19 Oct 2026
- Vinishma Technologies Private Limited vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026