ITO, WARD - 27(2), HALDIA, HALDIA vs. SRI PARTHA SARATHI DAS, PURBA MEDINIPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2501/KOL/2017Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 May 2018AY 2009-102 pages

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

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that since the quantum addition itself was not sustainable in the hands of the assessee (as it was to be assessed in the hands of a partnership firm), the penalty imposed on such addition had no basis. Therefore, the penalty was rightly deleted.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the deletion of a penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c). The penalty was levied on an addition made to the assessee's income. The CIT(A) had deleted the penalty relying on the fact that the appeal against the quantum addition was accepted.

What were the issues?

Whether a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be sustained when the underlying addition to income is found to be not assessable in the hands of the assessee.

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 “B” KOLKATA

Before: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

O R D E R

PER S.S.Godara, Judicial Member:

1.

- This Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2009-10 arises from Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-7,Kolkata’s order dated 20.09.2017, passed in case appeal No.80/CIT(A)-7/Kol/Ward-27(2)/16-17, reversing the Assessing Officer’s imposing penalty of ₹13,67,767/-, in proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the ‘Act’).

Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. It is noticed at the outset that CIT(Appeal)’s the only reason for deleting the penalty is that assessee’s appeal against quantum addition stands accepted in his order dated 31.08.2017. Both parties inform us during the course of hearing that the Revenue’s quantum appeal ITA No.2336/Ko/2017 ITO Wd-27(2) Hld. Vs. Sh Partha Sarathi Das Page 2 seeking to revive capital gains addition stands dismissed on 28.03.2018. A copy of said order forms part of case records before us. Learned co-ordinate bench therein concludes that capital gains addition is to be assessed in the hands of partnership firm than the present assessee / individual. We hold in this factual back drop that impugned penalty has no leg to stand. The Revenue sole sustentative ground is rejected.

3.

This Revenue’s appeal is dismissed.

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 →