FREESCALE SEMICONDUCTOR INDIA PVT. LTD.,NOIDA vs. ADDL. CIT, NOIDA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1691/DEL/2011Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 December 2016AY 2002-032 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that since the addition in respect of which the penalty was levied had been set aside by the ITAT in a separate quantum appeal, the penalty could not be sustained. The Assessing Officer was given liberty to reinitiate penalty proceedings if fresh assessment warranted it.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was against a penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act. This penalty was based on an addition of Rs. 74,34,469/- made by the Assessing Officer.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) could be sustained when the underlying addition on which it was based had been set aside.

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, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

Before: SHRI G.D. AGRAWALG.D. AGRAWAL & AND BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGRAWALG.D. AGRAWAL & AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVASHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA

For Appellant: Shri K.M. Gupta, Advocate and Shri Tarun Kumar, CA
For Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar Sharma, Senior DR
Hearing: 08.12.2016Pronounced: 16.12.2016

PER G.D. AGRAWAL, VP PER G.D. AGRAWAL, VP :- PER G.D. AGRAWAL, VP PER G.D. AGRAWAL, VP This appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 2002-03 is directed against the order of learned CIT(A), Ghaziabad dated 14th January, 2011.

2.

The only ground raised in this appeal by the assessee is against the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 amounting to `26,54,200/-.

3.

At the time of hearing before us, it is submitted by the learned counsel that this penalty had been levied by the Assessing Officer in respect of the addition of `74,34,469/-. It was pointed out by the learned counsel that the ITAT in quantum appeal vide order dated 22nd January, 2015 set aside the addition

1.

2 ITA-1691/Del/2011 made by the Assessing Officer and restored the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer. Copy of the order is filed before us. Once the addition in respect of which penalty has been levied is set aside, the penalty cannot be sustained. We, therefore, cancel the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act with the remark that the Assessing Officer will be at liberty to reinitiate penalty proceedings after completing the fresh assessment if the facts of the case so warrant. With this remark, the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) is cancelled.

4.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Decision pronounced in the open Court on 16.12.2016.

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 →