MADAN LAL SHARMA,DAUSA vs. ITO WARD, DAUSA, DAUSA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 186/JPR/2024Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 June 2024AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the quantum proceedings for the same assessment years had been set aside and restored to the Assessing Officer. Consequently, the penalty orders also deserved to be set aside for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed appeals against penalty orders upheld by the CIT(A) for assessment years 2017-18 and 2018-19. Penalties were imposed under Section 271AAC(1) and 271AAV(1) respectively.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty orders can be sustained when the underlying quantum assessment orders have been set aside. The need for fresh adjudication of penalties after deciding quantum proceedings.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271AAC(1),Section 271AAV(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES,” B”-Bench” JAIPUR

Before: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM & SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 186 & 187/JPR/2024

Hearing: 20/06/2024Pronounced: 21/06/2024

vkns'k@ORDER PER BENCH:

The above captioned two appeals have been filed challenging order dated 04.01.2024 passed by Learned CIT(A), as thereby penalty order dated 01.02.2024 passed by the Assessing Officer, in relation to assessment years 2017-18 and 2018-19 has been upheld. As regards the assessment year 2017-18, Assessing Officer imposed penalty of Rs. 2,90,481/- u/s 271AAC(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as the “Act”).

More judgments on Section 271AAC(1)

All 1,211 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271AAC(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →