MAMMON CONCAST PRIVATE LIMITED,AGRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(1), AGRA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 96/AGR/2025Status: DisposedITAT Agra04 April 2025AY 2012-13Bench: SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that since the quantum appeal was quashed due to invalid reopening, the penalty levied for the assessment year does not survive and is therefore cancelled.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was against a penalty order. The assessee argued that the penalty does not survive as the quantum appeal had already been quashed.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the penalty for concealment of income is sustainable when the underlying assessment proceedings (quantum appeal) have been quashed due to invalid reopening.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 147,Section 143(3)

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, AGRA BENCH ‘DB’ AGRA

Before: SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH & SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH

For Appellant: Shri Anurag Sinha, Adv
For Respondent: Shri Shailender Srivastava, Sr. DR
Hearing: 04.04.2025Pronounced: 04.04.2025

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.

2.

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.

3.

The Ld. DR could not controvert the submission of the assessee.

4. 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.

6.

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

Similar judgments

Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →