SWARASWATI SISU MANDIR,KABISURYANAGAR vs. ITO,EXEMPTION WARD, BERHAMPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 389/CTK/2024Status: HeardITAT Cuttack08 January 2025AY 2015-16Bench: MA Saraswati S Kabisurya Nag4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that it would not be appropriate to decide the penalty appeal while the quantum appeal was pending. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication along with the quantum appeal.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The quantum assessment appeal was still pending before the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether a penalty appeal can be adjudicated independently when the related quantum assessment appeal is still pending before the lower appellate authority.

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, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,

Before: BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHANMANISH AGARWAL

For Appellant: Dr. Sanjay Kumar Behura and Prakash Kumar Jena, Dr. Sanjay Kumar Behura and Prakash Kumar Jena
For Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr DR
Hearing: 08/01/20Pronounced: 08/01/20

Assessment Year : 2015-16 Saraswati Saraswati Sisu Sisu Mandir, Mandir, Vs. ITO, Exemption Ward, ITO, Exemption Ward, Kabisurya Nagar, G Kabisurya Nagar, Ganjam Berhampur PAN/GIR No. No.AAITS 7687 G (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee by : Dr. Sanjay Kumar Behura and Prakash Kumar Jena Assessee by : Dr. Sanjay Kumar Behura and Prakash Kumar Jena, Advs Revenue by : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr DR S.C.Mohanty, Sr DR Date of Hearing : 08/01/20 2025 Date of Pronouncement : 08/01/20 025 O R D E R Per Bench This is an This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the l appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi dated 9.6.2024 CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi dated 9.6.2024 in Appeal No.NFAC/2014 /2014-15/10296673 for the assessment year essment year 2015-16 confirming the penalty levied confirming the penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act.

2.

Dr. Sanjay Kumar Behura and Prakash Kumar Jena, Dr. Sanjay Kumar Behura and Prakash Kumar Jena, ld ARs appeared for the assessee and Shri the assessee and Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. DR appeared for the revenue. DR appeared for the revenue.

3.

At the time of hearing, ld AR was specifically asked to explain what At the time of hearing, ld AR was specifically asked to explain what At the time of hearing, ld AR was specifically asked to explain what has happened to quantum assessment, it was submitted that the appeal has happened to quantum assessment, it was submitted that the appeal has happened to quantum assessment, it was submitted that the appeal has P a g e 1 | 4 been filed before the ld CIT(A) on 1.11.2024 vide acknowledgement No.689927610101124. The relevant portion of the Form No.35 filed before the ld CIT(A) is attached as Annexure-A to this order as under:

P a g e 2 | 4

4.

At this point, as it is noticed that the quantum appeal is pending before the ld CIT(A), it would not be appropriate that the penalty appeal to be disposed off. This being so, in the interest of justice, the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of the ld CIT(A) for re-adjudication alongwith the quantum appeal.

5.

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 08/01/2025.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →