DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. D.M. CORPORATION PVT. LTD., KOLHAPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 960/PUN/2015Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 May 2018AY 2012-124 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the penalty by the CIT(A), stating that since the assessee's total income was determined as Nil after considering the revised return and subsequent orders, no tax was payable, and thus no penalty was leviable.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer levied penalty under Section 221(1) for unpaid tax after denying deductions claimed by the assessee. The assessee had filed a revised return declaring Nil income under MAT provisions, which was not initially considered.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 221(1) is leviable when the assessee subsequently files a revised return showing Nil income and no tax is payable.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 221(1),Section 140A(3),Section 80IA(4)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, PUNE

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Modi
For Respondent: Shri Nikhil Pathak
Hearing: 31.05.2018Pronounced: 31.05.2018

आदेश / ORDER

PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM

The appeal filed by the Revenue is against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1 & 2, Kolhapur dated 16.03.2015 relating to assessment year 2012-13 against order passed under section 221 (1) r.w.s. 140A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( in short ‘the Act’).

2.

The Revenue has raised following grounds of appeal:

2 ITA No.960/PUN/2015 A.Y.2012-13

“1. On the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) was not justified in deleting the penalty levied by the AO u/s. 221(1) of the Act. The Ld.CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that there was no revised return on the date on which penalty u/s. 221(1) of the Act was levied. 2. On the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) wrongly deleted the penalty u/s. 221(1) of the Act by not appreciating the fact that the date on which penalty was levied, there was unpaid demand and hence, under the circumstances, the benefit of revised return cannot be given. 3. The order of Ld.CIT(A) may be vacated and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. 4. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend and modify any of the above grounds of appeal.”

3.

The issue raised in present appeal is against the deletion of penalty levied

under section 221(1) of the Act.

4.

Briefly in the facts of the case, assessee had filed return of income after

claiming deduction under section 80IA(4) of the Act at Nil. However, deduction under

section 80IA(4) of the Act was denied by the Assessing Officer and additions were

also made on account of unrecorded bills at total income of Rs.41,28,62,610/-.

Consequent to the assessment order passed, the Assessing Officer noted that

assessee had filed return of income declaring income as per MAT provision and had

not paid any assessment tax. The Assessing Officer held assessee to be liable for

penalty under section 221(1) r.w.s 140A(3) of the Act and penalty of Rs.58,57,974/-

was levied. The CIT(A) deleted the penalty levied under section 221(1) of the Act,

since the assessment tax payable was Nil after filing revised return of income.

5.

The Revenue is in appeal against the order of CIT(A).

6.

The Ld. AR for the assessee pointed out that income in the hands of

assessee has been assessed at Nil as per order giving effect to the order of CIT(A),

Kolhapur. He further pointed out that the Tribunal dismissed the quantum appeal of

the Revenue in ITA No.1811/PUN/2014 relating to assessment year 2012-13 with

3 ITA No.960/PUN/2015 A.Y.2012-13

lead order in ITA No.1805 to 1811/PUN/2014 relating to assessment years 2006-07 to 2012-13, order dated 23.03.2018.

7.

The Ld. DR for the Revenue fairly admitted that the Tribunal had deleted the addition in the hands of assessee.

8.

We have heard rival contentions and perused the record. The issue arising in the present appeal is deletion of penalty under section 221(1) of the Act. The said penalty was levied on the income declared by the assessee as per MAT provision. However, the assessee had filed revised return of income under MAT provision at Nil which was not considered by the Assessing Officer. The CIT(A) gave certain directions and after direction of CIT(A), the total income was determined at Nil by the Assessing Officer while giving effect to the order of CIT(A) dated 04.08.2014. The copy of said order is available on record. The Tribunal consequently upheld the order of CIT(A). Further, CIT(A) while deleting penalty levied under section 221(1) of the Act, had noted the fact that assessee in the revised return of income had declared Nil income as per MAT provision and deleted penalty. In the totality of the above facts and circumstances, since no tax payable in the hands of the assessee, no penalty is leviable under section 221(1) of the Act. According, we uphold the order of CIT(A) in this regard.

9.

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open Court on this 31st day of May, 2018.

Sd/- Sd/- ( ANIL CHATURVEDI) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) लेखा सद�य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER �या�यक सद�य/JUDICIAL MEMBER

पुणे / Pune; �दनांक / Dated : 31st May , 2018 SB

4 ITA No.960/PUN/2015 A.Y.2012-13

आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ� / The Appellant. 1. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 2. 3. The CIT(Appeals) -1 & 2, Kolhapur. 4. The CIT (central), Kolhapur. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, “बी” ब�च, 5. पुणे / DR, ITAT, “B” Bench, Pune. गाड� फ़ाइल / Guard File. 6.

// True Copy //

आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER,

�नजी स�चव /Private Secretary आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.

More judgments on Section 221(1)

All 159 judgments and leading authorities on Section 221(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →