MAMMON CONCAST PRIVATE LIMITED,AGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(1), AGRA
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AGRA BENCH ‘DB’ AGRA
Before: SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH & SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AGRA BENCH ‘DB’ AGRA
(Through Physical/Virtual Hearing)
BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
ITA No.96/Agr/2025 [Assessment Year: 2012-13]
Mammon Concast Private Income Tax Officer, Limited, Ward-2(1)(1), 144, Kaveri Kunj, Phase-II, Vs Agra Uttar Pradesh-282002 Agra, Uttar Pradesh-282005 PAN-AAGCM5635G Appellant Respondent
Appellant by Shri Anurag Sinha, Adv. Respondent by Shri Shailender Srivastava, Sr. DR
Date of Hearing 04.04.2025 Date of Pronouncement 04.04.2025 ORDER PER BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, AM,
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated
26.12.2024 of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, relating to
Assessment Year 2012-13 arising out of order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income
Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to ‘the Act’) dated 16.03.2024.
At the outset in this case, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted
that the quantum appeal in this case has already been quashed vide order
dated 12.02.2025 in ITA No.77/Del/2023. Hence, he submitted that the
penalty does not survive.
The Ld. DR could not controvert the submission of the assessee.
2 ITA No.96/Agr/2025
We find that the Tribunal while allowing the quantum appeal of the
assessee held that the learned Assessing Officer’s reopening reasons had
nowhere even indicated that the assessee didn’t disclose all the relevant
particulars, ‘fully’ and ‘truly’ in the first round of assessment u/s 143(3) of
the Act framed on 26.02.2015. The Tribunal further held that this was
admittedly a reopening case involving Section 147 1st proviso i.e. beyond
period of 4 years from the end of relevant assessment year. The relevant
finding of the Tribunal is reproduced hereunder:-
“3. We come to the first and foremost legal issue of the validity of the impugned reopening itself. A perusal of the case file at page 56 indicates that the learned Assessing Officer’s reopening reasons had nowhere even indicated that the assessee didn’t disclose all the relevant particulars, ‘fully’ and ‘truly’ in the first round of assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act framed on 26.02.2015. This is admittedly a reopening case involving Section 147 1st proviso i.e. beyond period of 4 years from the end of relevant assessment year. 4. That being the clinching case emanating from the case file, we quote Hindustan Lever Ltd. vs. R. B. Wadkar, Asst. CIT (No. 1) [2004] 268 ITR 332 (Bom) that such a failure on the Assessing Officer part vitiates the entire reopening itself as there is no scope of any improvement in the corresponding reasons recorded which have to be read as standalone basis. We accordingly quash the impugned reopening in very terms. All other grounds stand rendered academic. 5. This assessee’s appeal is allowed.” 5. Accordingly, since, the Tribunal has already quashed the quantum
proceeding, the penalty for the year in this case does not survive and the
same is cancelled. Hence, the assessee’s appeal stands allowed.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 4th April, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- [SUNIL KUMAR SINGH] [BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated 04.04.2025. f{x~{tÜ f{x~{tÜ f{x~{tÜ f{x~{tÜ
3 ITA No.96/Agr/2025
