K. KRISHNAMURTHY,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 667/BANG/2015Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 October 2016AY 2011-123 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee's reliance on a previous case was misplaced as, unlike that case, the assessee had not made the required payment of tax and interest. Consequently, the assessee was not eligible for the benefit under Section 271AAA(2).

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against a penalty imposed under Section 271AAA. The assessee had requested time to pay taxes and interest, but failed to do so even after the extended deadline.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee is eligible for immunity from penalty under Section 271AAA(2) when tax and interest have not been paid, despite a notice and extended time.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271AAA

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BANGALORE BENCH ‘B’, BANGALORE

Before: SHRI S.K.YADAV & SHRI A. K. GARODIA

For Appellant: Shri Prathik, C. A
For Respondent: Shri AR. V. Sreenivasan, JCIT

O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A. M.:

This is an assessee’s appeal directed against the Order of CIT (A) – 4 Bangalore dated 04.03.2015 for A. Y. 2011 – 12.

2.

The assessee has raised as many as 6 Grounds but the only grievance of the assessee is about penalty u/s 271AAA.

3.

Learned AR of the assessee submitted that reliance was placed by the assessee on a tribunal order rendered in the case of DCIT vs. Pioneer marbles & Interiors Ltd. As reported in 19 Taxman.com 301 (Kol.) and contents of this tribunal order are reproduced by the CIT (A) on pages 13 to 15 of his order. He placed reliance on this tribunal order. Learned DR of the 2 IT (TP) A No.92/B/2015 revenue supported the orders of the authorities below. He also submitted that it is noted by CIT (A) in Para 6 of his order that the assessee has not made the payment of tax and interest even after penalty notice was issued and further time was allowed for payment of tax.

4.

We have considered the rival submissions. We find that this is noted by the A. O. in the penalty order that the assessee has filed a letter dated 10.09.1013 requesting for time to make payment of taxes and time was granted till 30.09.2013 but the assessee did not pay taxes and under these facts, he imposed penalty u/s 271AAA. As per the tribunal order cited before CIT (A) and also before us, the assesssee in that case, the assessee made payment of tax and interest in full on getting the demand notice in that case u/s 156 and under these facts, the tribunal held that since no time limit is prescribed for payment of tax and interest, the payment of tax and interest on raising the demand u/s 156 is good compliance of this payment requirement and the A.O. cannot insist that such payment should have been made before filing of return but in the present case, payment of tax and interest has not been made till now because no such evidence of payment has been brought on record before us or before lower authorities.

Hence in the facts of the present case, this tribunal order is not applicable.

Moreover, since the assessee has not complied with the specific requirements of sub section (2) of section 271AAA about payment of taxes and interest and therefore, the assessee is not eligible for the benefit of this sub section (2) of section 271AAA. Hence, we decline to interfere in the order of CIT (A).

3 IT (TP) A No.92/B/2015

5.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page.

More judgments on Section 271AAA

All 606 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271AAA →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →