ITO, WARD- 2(3), MEERUT vs. SHIV MILK PRODUCTS, MEERUT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3903/DEL/2017Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 December 2017AY 2010-113 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 upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the penalty. It agreed that the penalty order was premature as the quantum appeal, which the penalty was consequential to, was still pending.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order deleting a penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c). The CIT(A) had deleted the penalty because the related quantum appeal for the assessment year was set aside for fresh adjudication.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be sustained when the underlying quantum appeal has been set aside for fresh adjudication.

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, DELHI ‘SMC’ BENCH,

Before: SHRI B.P. JAIN

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Goel, Adv
Hearing: 29.11.2017Pronounced: 12.12.2017

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘SMC’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI B.P. JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER [A.Y. 2010-11] The Income-tax Officer Vs. M/s Shiv Milk Products Ward 2(3), Meerut Delhi Bye Pass Road Village & Post Khadoli Meerut PAN : AAWFS 2098 A [Appellant] [Respondent] Date of Hearing : 29.11.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 12.12.2017 Assessee by : Shri V.K. Goel, Adv Revenue by : Shri Atiq Ahmed Sr. DR ORDER This appeal of the Revenue is directed against the order of the ld. CIT(A), Meerut vide order dated 08.03.2017 for A.Y. 2010-11.

2.

The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:

“1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the ld. CIT(A) erred in law and facts in deleting the penalty of Rs. 32,65,126/- imposed by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, ignoring the set aside proceedings ordered by the ITAT in quantum order in this case were pending before the ld. CIT(A). Therefore, decision regarding sustainability of penalty has been taken by him at a premature stage.

2. That in the facts and circumstances of the case the order of the ld. CIT(A) may be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored.

3. That the appellant craves leave to add, modify and/or delete any ground(s) of appeal.

3.

I have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. At the outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee pointed out the order of the ld. CIT(A) in para 3, which is reproduced hereinbelow:

“I have gone through the penalty order and submissions of the ld. counsel for the assessee. The ld. counsel for the assessee has filed copy of quantum order in this case which has been set aside to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The said quantum order during for assessment year 2010-11 was received in this office on 22.02.2017. Accordingly, the consequential penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 12.05.2015 is hereby deleted for statistical purposes as of now. The penalty, if any, would revive when the quantum order is passed by this office as per law.”

4.

From the perusal of the above para of the ld. CIT(A), it is evident that the quantum appeal has been set aside to the ld. CIT(A) and, therefore, the ld. CIT(A) has also set aside the order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act with a condition that the same will revive when the quantum order is passed by the ld. CIT(A) in the set aside proceedings. In that view of the matter, I do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) and, therefore, the grievance of the Revenue fails. Ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed.

5.

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in is dismissed. The order is pronounced in the open court on 12.12.2017.

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 →