MADAN SINGH BHARARA,MUMBAI vs. JCIT (OSD) RG 8(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 7333/MUM/2012Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 February 2018AY 2007-083 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that since the penalty proceedings arose from an assessment order that has now been set aside, the penalty is not sustainable in law. Therefore, the penalty was dropped.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was against a penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c). The ITAT noted that the related quantum appeal for the same assessment year had been set aside and restored to the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh adjudication.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the sustainability of a penalty when the underlying assessment order has been set aside. The Tribunal considered whether the penalty could survive independently of the assessment.

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, “B”

Before: SHRI G. S. PANNU, AM & SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM

आदेश / O R D E R

Per Sandeep Gosain, Judicial Member:

1.

This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-16, Mumbai dated 17.10.12 for AY 2007-08 on the grounds mentioned herein below:- 1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the penalty levied by the JCIT u/s 271(1)(c) which is not conformity with the facts and circumstances of the case.

2. The appellant craves for permission to add or amend any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.

2.

The Ld. AR drawn our attention to the order of Hon’ble ITAT in quantum appeal bearing for AY 2007-08 in case titled Sardar Madan Singh Bharara Vrs ACIT dated 05.06.17 and submitted that the quantum appeal filed by the assessee has been set aside /restore back to the file of AO for fresh adjudication.

3.

On the perusal of para no. 5 of the said order of Hon’ble ITAT, we noticed that the Hon’ble ITAT has restored back the matter to the file of AO for fresh adjudication. The AO is also directed to decide the issue after considering the additional evidence filed by the assessee before Hon’ble ITAT.

4. Since the present penalty proceedings were borne out of the assessment order, which has now been set aside to the file of AO by the order of Hon’ble ITAT. Therefore the penalty arising out of the said order is not sustainable in the eyes of law. In view of the above facts, circumstances and discussion, we drop the penalty. It is ordered accordingly.

4.

In the net result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed.

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 →