MAHIPAL KOTHARI AND SONS,BONGAIGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BONGAIGAON

PDF · subscribers
ITA 99/GTY/2024Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati11 February 2025AY 2015-16Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member), SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS (Judicial Member)2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the addition on which the penalty was imposed had already been deleted by a co-ordinate bench. Therefore, the penalty had no basis to survive.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against the confirmation of penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) by the CIT(A). The penalty was based on an addition made by the AO regarding the sale of shares.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be sustained when the underlying addition has been deleted by the Tribunal.

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, “GUWAHATI” BENCH, GUWAHATI

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D Shah, AR
For Respondent: Shri Kaushik Ray, DR
Hearing: 30.01.2025Pronounced: 11.02.2025

O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, AM:

This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 05.03.2024 for the AY 2015-16.

2.

The only issue raised in various grounds of appeal is against the confirmation of penalty by ld. CIT (A) as imposed by the ld. AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.

3. At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that the addition made by the ld. AO towards sale of shares on which this penalty was imposed has already been deleted by the Tribunal vide order dated 18.10.2024 passed in and Ors for A.Y. 2015-16 in the case of Mahipal Kothari Vs. ACIT and therefore penalty sustained by the ld. CIT (A) has no legs to stand. Therefore, the ld.

4.

The ld. DR on the other hand fairly agreed that the addition has been deleted by the Tribunal as stated by the ld AR.

5.

After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record including the decision of the co-ordinate Bench in quantum appeal in for A.Y. 2015-16, the addition on which this penalty was imposed was deleted. Accordingly the penalty has to go as there is no basis of the said penalty surviving any more. Therefore, we set aside the order of ld. CIT (A) and direct the ld. AO to delete the addition.

6.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 11.02.2025.

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 →