I.T.O., WARD-34(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHIR AMIT AGARWAL, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2256/KOL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 June 2018AY 2011-20123 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that since the additions made in the quantum appeal were deleted by the ITAT, the penalty levied for concealment of income was unsustainable. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer (AO) levied a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for concealment of income. The assessee appealed to the CIT(A), who deleted the penalty relying on a prior ITAT order that had deleted the quantum additions. The Revenue appealed this deletion to the ITAT.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be sustained when the additions leading to the penalty have been deleted by a higher appellate authority.

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, KOLKATA BENCH “D” KOLKATA

Before: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

Shri S. Dasgupta, Addl. CIT-DR अपीलाथ� क� ओर से/By Appellant None ��यथ� क� ओर से/By Respondent 22-03-2018 सुनवाई क� तार�ख/Date of Hearing 14-06-2018 घोषणा क� तार�ख/Date of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R PER Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member:- This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Kolkata dated 28.09.2016. Penalty imposed by ITO Ward- 34(2), Kolkata u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) vide his order dated 11.03.2015 for assessment year 2011-12.

2.

None appeared for the assessee, however, after going through the records and the submission of thee Ld. DR we are of the view that we can dispose of this petition without hearing the Ld. AR of the assessee.

ITA No.2256/Kol/2016 A.Y. 2011-12 ITO Wd-34(2) Kol. Vs. Sh Amit Agarwal Page 2 The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal. “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned. CIT(A) erred in allowing relief to the assessee regarding penalty Rs.30,01,525.00 u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act made by A.O on account of concealment of income when the outcome of the original order is subjudiced.

2. The appellant craves the leave to make any addition, alteration, modification of grounds at the appellate stage.”

3. At the outset it was noticed that the assessment u/s. 143(3) was framed by the AO vide order dated 28.08.2013 by making certain addition to the total income of thee assessee. The assessee against the assessment order preferred the appeal before the ld. CIT-A, who was pleased to uphold the order of AO vide order dated 28.01.2014. Subsequently the matter was carried to the Hon'ble ITAT in where the quantum additions were deleted vide order dated 9-9-2016. The relevant extract of the order of hon'ble ITAT are reproduced on pages 5 to 9 of the CIT(A) order.

However in the mean time the AO levied the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for Rs.33,10,525.00 vide order dated 11.3.2015. The assessee against the penalty order preferred the appeal before the ld. CIT-A, who was pleased to delete the same vide order dated 27.09.2016 after having reliance on the order of this Hon'ble Tribunal in where the quantum additions were deleted vide order dated 9-9-2016. Being aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT-A, Revenue is in appeal before us.

4.The Ld. DR vehemently relied on the order of Assessing Officer.

5.

We have heard the ld. DR and perused the materials available on record. In the instant case, there is no ambiguity that the additions made in the quantum appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT in were deleted vide order dated 9-9- 2016. Thus from the above proposition, there remains no doubt that the penalty order passed by the AO was unsustainable. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue ITA No.2256/Kol/2016 A.Y. 2011-12 ITO Wd-34(2) Kol. Vs. Sh Amit Agarwal Page 3 becomes infructuous. Hence, we find no reason to interfere in the order passed by the ld. CIT(A). Thus we dismiss the appeal filed by the Revenue.

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 →