J.P. BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,

PDF · subscribers
ITA 843/PUN/2016Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 May 2018AY 2004-053 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that since the addition on which the penalty was based was deleted, there was no merit in levying the penalty. Therefore, the penalty was directed to be deleted.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was against a penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, based on an addition of Rs. 10 lakhs for unexplained cash credit. The addition itself was later deleted by the Tribunal.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be sustained when the underlying addition has been deleted by the Tribunal. Whether the notice for penalty was specific.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 68,Section 274

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE

For Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma
Hearing: 07.05.2018Pronounced: 14.05.2018

आदेश / ORDER PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM:

The appeal filed by the assessee is against order of CIT(A)-1, Nashik, dated 07.03.2016 relating to assessment year 2004-05 against levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’).

2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:-

2 ITA No.843/PUN/2016 J. P. Builders and Developers

1.

On the basis of facts and in the circumstances of the case and as per law, the Commissioner of Income Tax, (Appeals)-1, Nashik is not justified in confirming the penalty U/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act on addition of Rs.10,00,000/- on account of unexplained cash credit U/s 68 of the Act. 2. On the basis of facts and in the circumstances of the case and as per law, the order passed by Commissioner of Income Tax, (Appeals)-1, Nashik, confirming the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) to be quashed as the same is passed without giving any opportunity of being heard to the appellant thereby violating the principles of natural justice. 3. On the basis of facts and the circumstances of the case and as per law, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Pune is not justified in confirming the penalty U/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act on addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- levied by the AO particularly when the notice U/s. 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act issued by the A.O. does not specify the specific charge framed against the appellant i.e. whether the notice was issued for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income or for concealment of income of for any other reason.

3.

The issue raised in the present appeal is against levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on account of ₹ 10 lakhs.

4.

The assessee has filed written submissions in this regard which are taken up and the appeal is decided after hearing the learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue.

5.

On perusal of record, we find that penalty for concealment under section 271(1)(c) of the Act was levied by the Assessing Officer on the basis of addition on account of unexplained cash credit of ₹ 16 lakhs. The assessee in the written submissions has pointed out that the CIT(A) vide order dated 27.12.2007 in the first round had dismissed the appeal of assessee. However, the Tribunal vide order dated 29.04.2012 in ITA No.236/PN/2012 had restored the issue back to the file of CIT(A). Thereafter, the CIT(A), Nashik vide order dated 01.12.2015 restricted the addition of ₹ 16 lakhs on account of unexplained cash credit to ₹ 10 lakhs. The Tribunal vide order dated 02.06.2017 in ITA No.371/PUN/2016 had deleted the addition of ₹ 10 lakhs. The Assessing Officer thereafter, giving effect to the order of

3 ITA No.843/PUN/2016 J. P. Builders and Developers

Tribunal has reduced the addition of ₹ 10 lakhs vide order dated 23.11.2017, copy of the said order is placed on record. The basis for levy of penalty was the addition of ₹ 16 lakhs, which was first reduced by the CIT(A) to ₹ 10 lakhs and the same was deleted by the Tribunal. The basis for levy of penalty has been allowed in favour of assessee. Hence, there is no merit in levy of penalty for concealment under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Assessing Officer is thus, directed to delete the same. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are thus, allowed.

6.

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced on this 14th day of May, 2018.

Sd/- Sd/- (D.KARUNAKARA RAO) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) ऱेखा सदस्य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER न्याययक सदस्य / JUDICIAL MEMBER ऩुणे / Pune; ददनाांक Dated : 14th May, 2018. GCVSR आदेश की प्रयिलऱपप अग्रेपषि/Copy of the Order is forwarded to : अऩीऱाथी / The Appellant; 1. प्रत्यथी / The Respondent; 2. आयकर आयुक्त(अऩीऱ) / The CIT(A)-1, Nashik; 3. 4. The Pr.CIT-1, Nashik; ववभागीय प्रतततनधध, आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण, ऩुणे “ए” 5. / DR ‘A’, ITAT, Pune; गार्ड पाईऱ / Guard file. 6. आदेशािुसार/ BY ORDER, सत्यावऩत प्रतत //True Copy// वररष्ठ तनजी सधिव / Sr. Private Secretary आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण, ऩुणे / ITAT, Pune

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 →