Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against a penalty order passed under Section 271(1)(c) by the CIT(A). The penalty pertains to an assessment where the underlying quantum addition had previously been remanded by a Co-ordinate Bench of the ITAT to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication.
Held
Given that the quantum addition, which formed the basis for the penalty, was remanded by the ITAT, the tribunal held that the penalty order also warrants reconsideration. Consequently, the penalty order is remanded to the Assessing Officer to follow the procedure for levy of penalty as per Section 275(1A).
Key Issues
Whether a penalty order under Section 271(1)(c) should be sustained or remanded when the corresponding quantum addition has already been remanded by the ITAT.
Sections Cited
Section 271(1)(c), Section 275(1A)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘H’,
Before: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Sh. Sudhir Kumar
ORDER
Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member:
The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of ld. CIT(A)-9, New Delhi dated 25.07.2019.
At the outset, the ld. AR brought to our notice that the Co- ordinate Bench of ITAT in and ITA No. 737/Del/2020, dated 13.06.2024 remanded the matter in the quantum addition to the ld. CIT(A). Hence, the penalty order passed u/s 271(1)(c) is being remanded to the Assessing Officer to follow the procedure of levy of penalty as per the provisions of Section 275(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Techman Buildwell (P) Ltd. 3. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 29/07/2024.