M/S. R.K. INDUSTRIES,BURDWAN vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 2, BURDWAN, BURDWAN
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that since the quantum addition related to undisclosed income from FCI was deleted by the Tribunal, the penalty imposed on the same issue was unsustainable and therefore cancelled. The CIT(A)'s order upholding the penalty was set aside.
What were the facts?
The assessee appealed against the CIT(A)'s order upholding disallowance under Section 40A(3) for delayed payment of provident fund and undisclosed income. The Tribunal had previously partly allowed the assessee's appeal regarding the quantum addition.
What were the issues?
Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is sustainable when the underlying addition has been deleted by the Tribunal. The issue of disallowance under Section 40A(3) was also part of the original appeal.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA BENCH “A”, KOLKATA
ORDER
PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER This appeal by the assessee against the order dated 23.05.2018 passed by CIT(A), Burdwan for AY 2011-12.
Heard both parties and perused the material available on record. It is noted from the record that the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal challenging the action of the CIT(A) in upholding the disallowance u/s 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “Act”) delaying the payment of provident fund and undisclosed income. This Tribunal vide its order dated 24.10.2018 allowed the appeal of the assessee partly. It is observed from the order imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act by the AO, that the penalty proceedings initiated for not disclosing of corresponding income received from Food Corporation of India (in short “FCI”). As discussed above, the said addition was deleted by this Tribunal vide its order dated (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2011-12) 24.10.2018 vide its para 3. Therefore, in our opinion, when the quantum was deleted by this Tribunal and penalty imposed on the same issue does not stand and no order contrary brought on record by the Ld.DR. In such circumstances, in our opinion, the penalty imposed by the AO does not stand for scrutiny. Therefore, the penalty of Rs.60,000/- is cancelled and the order of CIT(A) is set aside. Accordingly, Grounds No.1 & 2 raised by the assessee are allowed.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 22.11.2018.
More judgments on Section 40A(3)
- Rekha Agarwal, Jaipur vs ITO WD 4(1), JaipurITA 844/JPR/2025[2021-22]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Infra Developers, Shivpuri vs Income Tax Officer, AshoknagarITA 454/AGR/2026[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Saiyed Zaharul Alam, Murshidabad vs I.T.O., Ward - 42(1), MurshidabadITA 2233/KOL/2026[2013-2014]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2013-2014
- M/S Sadana Electric Store, Lucknow vs DCIT Range-6, LucknowITA 283/LKW/2024[2014-15]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2014-15
- Nagendra Prasad, Patna vs ITO Ward -5(3) Patna, Dak BanglowITA 362/PAT/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2016-17
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Saraswati Enterprises vs. State Of RajasthanRajasthan · 28 Oct 2026
- Akshaya Consortium vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Andhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- Dipanshu Aggarwal vs. Director General Of GST IntelligenceDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Dezinetree Projects PVT. LTD. vs. Spokes Digital Inc And AnrDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Jaydeep Jayantilal Hudaka vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 28 Oct 2026