ITO, AJMER vs. KEKRI SAHAKARI BHUMI VIKAS BANK LTD., AJMER

PDF · subscribers
ITA 881/JPR/2016Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 January 2017AY 2008-094 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that since the additions on which the penalty was levied were deleted in the quantum proceedings, there was no basis for the penalty. Therefore, the deletion of penalty by the CIT(A) was confirmed.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the deletion of penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) for AY 2008-09 and 2009-10. The penalty was levied on additions made in quantum proceedings, which were subsequently deleted by a coordinate bench.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be sustained when the additions forming the basis of the penalty have been deleted in quantum proceedings.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 80P(2)(a)(i)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR

Before: SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Jain (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@
For Respondent: Shri Rajendra Jha (Addl.CIT)
Hearing: 02.01.2017

Heard together (5 matters)

ITA No.881/JP/16
CO No.42/JP/16
ITA No.882/JP/16
CO No.43/JP/16
ITA No.23/JP/15

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

PER SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M.

These are two appeals filed by the Revenue against the deletion of penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act by the Ld. CIT(A), Ajmer vide his orders of even date i.e. 12.07.2016 for A.Y. 2008-09 and 2009-10. Further the assessee has also filed its Cross Objection for both the years in support of the order of the ld CIT(A) wherein it has been prayed that penalty levied by the AO has rightly been deleted by the ld CIT(A).

ITA No. 881 & 882 JP/16 ITO Ward 2(3), Ajmer vs. M/s Kekri Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Ltd. 2. At the outset, it was brought to the notice of the Bench that the Co-ordinate Bench vide its order dated 12.02.2016 in ITA No.23/JP/15 and 505/JP/15 has deleted the additions in the quantum proceedings for the subject assessment years. Further it was also brought to the notice of the Bench that ld. CIT(A) has deleted the penalty following the deletion of additions by the Coordinate Bench vide its order dated 12.02.2016.

3.

The relevant findings of the Coordinate Bench in ITA No. 23/JP/15 and 505/JP/15 is reproduced as under: “We have heard the rival arguments and perused the material available on record. The assessee has clearly demonstrated through its loan disbursed statement that during A.Y. 2008-09, it had disbursed 89.10% of its total loan disbursed towards agricultural and allied activities. Similarly, during A.Y. 2009- 10 the disbursement towards these activities was to the tune of 86.41%. Hence, following the Coordinate Bench decision as referred supra, we hereby confirm the claim of assessee for deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act for both the years. Hence, ground taken by the assessee is allowed.”

4.

The ld. DR is heard who has relied upon the order of the AO. At the same time, he has fairly agreed that the additions in the quantum proceedings have been deleted by the Coordinate Bench vide its order dated 22.02.2016.

5.

After hearing both the parties and perusing the material available on record, it is clear that the subject matter for levy of penalty has already been deleted by the Coordinate Bench in quantum proceedings vide its order dated 22.02.2016. The Coordinate Bench has upheld the assessee’s claim for deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act and the additions made by the Assessing officer by way of denial of deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act has been deleted. Given that the addition, on which the penalty has been levied, has been deleted by the Coordinate Bench in the quantum proceedings, there is no

ITA No. 881 & 882 JP/16 ITO Ward 2(3), Ajmer vs. M/s Kekri Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Ltd. basis for levy of penalty and the penalty doesn’t therefore survive. We accordingly confirm the order of the ld CIT(A) deleting the levy of penalty for both the impunged years.

In the result all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and cross- objections filed by the assessee are allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 02/01/2017. Sd/- Sd/- (KUL BHARAT) (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member Jaipur Dated:- 02/01/2017 Pillai आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेषित@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू vihykFkhZ@The Appellant- The ITO, ward 2(3), Ajmer 1. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- M/s Kekri Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank 2. Ltd, Kekri 3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT –Ajmer vk;dj vk;qDr¼vihy½@The CIT(A)-Ajmer 4. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत 5. 6. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File (ITA No.881 & 882 and CO. 42 & 43 /JP/2016)

vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, सहायक पंजीकार@ Aेेपेजंदज. त्महपेजतंत.

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 →