ASST.C.I.T., BELLARY vs. SMT. LAKSHMI SINGH, HOSPET
In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that since the quantum addition, which formed the basis for the penalty, was deleted in the quantum appeal and upheld by the High Court, the penalty could not survive. Therefore, the deletion of penalty by the CIT(A) was upheld.
What were the facts?
The revenue appealed against the deletion of penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) for AY 2005-06. The penalty was related to an addition made under Section 153C.
What were the issues?
Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can survive when the underlying addition is deleted. Whether the High Court's decision upholding the deletion of quantum addition impacts the penalty.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BANGALORE BENCH “ A ”
Before: SHRI ARUN KUMAR GARODIA & SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO
Heard together (2 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
Per Shri Vijay Pal Rao, J.M. : This appeal by the revenue is directed against the order dt.12.02.2016 of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Panaji-2, arising from penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') for the Assessment Year 2005-06.
The revenue has raised the following grounds :
We have heard the learned D.R. as well as learned A.R. and considered the relevant material on record. At the outset, we note that in the quantum appeal, the Tribunal deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer in the assessment under Section 153C of the Act vide order dt.9.12.2014 in ITA No.113/PNJ/2014. Though the revenue challenged the said order of this Tribunal before the Hon'ble High Court however the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court vide its decision dt.13.01.2017 has dismissed the appeal of the revenue and upheld the order of the Tribunal. The relevant part of decision of Hon'ble High Court in para 7 as under :
Since the quantum is no more in existent therefore the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act could not survive. Accordingly, we do not find any error or illegality in the order of CIT (Appeals) in deleting the penalty levied.
In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 12th May, 2017.
More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
- Shalin Jayantbhai Desai, Vadodara vs ACIT, Circle-4(2), Vadodara Present…ITA 2569/AHD/2026[2010-11]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2010-11
- Neo Structo Construction P. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs The Pr. CIT- 3, AhmedabadITA 1216/AHD/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2370/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2369/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Sikka Motors PVT LTD vs. Union Of INDIA & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Shri Yaras Suresh Babu Prabhu Kumar vs. The Union Of INDIATelangana · 27 Oct 2026
- Santa Singh vs. SuperintendentUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026
- Azaad Builders vs. Assistant Commissioner SGSTUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026
- Shadab Malik vs. State Of U.P. And 2 OthersAllahabad · 26 Oct 2026