M/S KESARWANI ZARDA BHANDAR,ALLAHABAD vs. ACIT RANGE , ALLAHABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 116/ALLD/2023Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad18 July 2025AY 2009-10Bench: SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA (Accountant Member), SHRI SUBHASH MALGURIA (Judicial Member)3 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, with both parties' agreement, restored the penalty quantification under section 271(1)(c) back to the Assessing Officer. The AO is directed to re-quantify the penalty, considering all prior appellate authorities' orders (High Court, Tribunal, CIT(A)) and specific orders dated 15/07/2014, across all relevant assessment years.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against penalties levied under section 271(1)(c) for multiple assessment years, which were sustained by the CIT(A). The dispute arose from the department's alleged misinterpretation of a High Court judgment while giving effect to it, leading to incorrect penalty quantification, a matter already subjudice with the Assessing Officer.

What were the issues?

Proper quantification of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, considering previous judgments and orders from higher appellate authorities after the department's initial giving effect order.

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, ALLAHABAD BENCH, ALLAHABAD

Before: SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA & SHRI SUBHASH MALGURIA

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Godbole, C.A

Heard together (2 matters)

I.T.A. No.14/Alld/2021
I.T.A. No.16/Alld/2022

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

(Order pronounced in the open court on 18/07/2025)

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 →