JASWANTH KUMAR KOTHARI,MYSORE vs. ADDL COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX, MYSORE
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that if quantum additions are deleted, there is no basis for penalty for concealment or inaccurate particulars. Therefore, the penalty cannot be sustained and is deleted.
What were the facts?
The Assessing Officer imposed penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment of income. The CIT(A) upheld these penalties, relying on a Supreme Court judgment. The assessee appealed to the ITAT.
What were the issues?
Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be levied when the underlying additions to income have been deleted by the Tribunal.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- MAK Data (P.) Ltd. v. CIT186 citing38 Taxmann.com 448 · 2013 · SC · Read judgment
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BENGALURU BENCH C, BENGALURU
Before: SHRI. INTURI RAMA RAO & SHRI. LALIET KUMAR
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENGALURU BENCH 'C', BENGALURU BEFORE SHRI. INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI. LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER & 1907/Bang/2016 (Assessment Years : 2005-06 & 2006-07) Shri. Jaswanth Kumar Kothari, No.2875, 1st Main Road, Mahaveer Nagar, Mysuru .. Appellant PAN : AJAPK9270F v. Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax, Range-2, Mysuru .. Respondent Assessee by : Shri. V. Srinivasan, Advocate Revenue by : Smt. Padmameenakshi, JCIT Heard on : 20.02.2018 Pronounced on : 21.02.2018 O R D E R PER BENCH :
The present two appeals are filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT (A), Mysuru, dt.28.03.2016, confirming the levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act, for the assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07.
The Assessing Officer imposed penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act, for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income / ITA.1906/Bang/2016 Page - 2 concealment of income, of Rs.12,24,884/- and Rs.30,00,000/- for assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07 respectively. Aggrieved with the penalty orders the assessee filed appeals before the CIT (A).
On appeal the CIT (A) upheld the penalties imposed by the AO, after relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of MAK Data P. Ltd v. CIT [(2013) 38 taxmann.com 448]. Therefore the assessee is in appeals before us.
At the outset the Ld. AR has drawn our attention to the order passed by the Tribunal in the assessee’s own case, for the assessment years 2005-06, 2006-07 and also 2007-08 in quantum appeals in 1027, 2048/Bang/2013, dt.23.03.2017. The coordinate bench while hearing the quantum appeals had deleted all the additions made by the AO. For that purposes the assessee has also drawn our attention to the order giving effect to, for the assessment year 2005-06, at page 47 and 48 of the paper book. It was submitted by the Ld. AR for the assessee that as all the additions in the quantum appeals have been deleted by the Tribunal and the orders giving effect to the Tribunal order has also been passed therefore, there should not be any imposition of penalty by the authorities below.
On the other hand the Ld. DR supported the order passed by the lower authorities.
ITA.1906/Bang/2016 Page - 3
We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. In our view once the quantum additions are deleted by the Tribunal then, there is no question of furnishing either inaccurate particulars or concealment of income. The alleged concealment of income has not stood the scrutiny of the ITAT. Accordingly the same were deleted by the Tribunal. Therefore in our considered opinion the penalty cannot be sustained and is therefore deleted. We delete the same. However, we make it clear that in case the Revenue gets any relief in quantum proceedings before the Hon’ble High Court, then the Revenue will have a right to move an application before the Tribunal.
More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)
- 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
- Shalin Jayantbhai Desai, Vadodara vs ACIT, Circle-4(2), Vadodara Present…ITA 2569/AHD/2026[2010-11]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2010-11
- Neo Structo Construction P. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs The Pr. CIT- 3, AhmedabadITA 1216/AHD/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2370/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2369/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Prafulla Chandra Khatua, Mayurbhanj vs. The State Tax Officer Of CT And GST, MayurbhanjOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S.Sidhivinayak Roadways, Sundergarh vs. Commissioner Of GST And Central Excise, Rourkela Commissionerate, RourkelaOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Dillip Kumar Behera vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, Mayurbhanj CircleOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S. Kalinga Paper Mart, Sundergarh vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST, CuttackOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Kabita Nayak vs. Chief Commissioner, CGST, Central Excise And Customs, KhurdaOrissa · 15 Oct 2026