ITO, WARD-56(4), KOLKATA,KOLKATA vs. M/S. NOPANY & SONS, KOLKATA
In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that since the assessment order was annulled due to a procedural defect (lack of notice u/s 143(2)), the consequential penalty order also falls. The penalty cannot survive without a valid assessment order.
What were the facts?
The Revenue appealed against the deletion of penalty by the CIT(A). The penalty was imposed on additions made in an assessment order that was later annulled by the Tribunal.
What were the issues?
Whether a penalty imposed on additions made in an assessment order that is subsequently annulled can be sustained.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH: KOLKATA
आदेश/ORDER Per Shri A.T.Varkey, JM This is an appeal filed by the revenue against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-XXXVI, Kolkata dated 21.03.2014 for AY 2007-08 against the deletion of penalty by the Ld. CIT(A).
At the outset itself, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee brought to our notice that the penalty has been imposed on the additions made in the scrutiny assessment dated 31.12.2009 which has been annulled by the Tribunal vide order dated 20.07.2016 in & 1301/Kol/2011 for relevant AY 2007-08 and drew our attention to the order of the Tribunal which we have perused. We note that the Tribunal has found that there was no notice issued to assessee u/s. 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) before completion of assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act, so, the Tribunal annulled the assessment order. Since the penalty has been imposed for the additions/disallowances made in consequence to impugned assessment order which has been subsequently annulled by the Tribunal, so, the penalty does not survive. When the assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act itself has been found to be null in the eyes of law and, therefore, the penalty order passed on the assessment order also become null in the eyes of law. The case of the assessee is squarely covered by the legal maxim “Sublato Fundamento Credit Opus”, meaning in case a foundation is removed, the super-structure falls. In Badrinath vs Government Of Tamil Nadu And Ors. AIR 2000 SC 3243 the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that once the basis of the proceedings is gone all consequential orders and acts would fall on the ground automatically which principle is applicable to the judicial and quasi judicial proceedings also. Therefore, though the Ld. CIT(A) has decided the penalty issue on merits and has given relief to the assessee, we after perusal of the Tribunal’s order annulling the 143(3) order, penalty flowing from the annulled assessment proceeding falls and, therefore, cannot be sustained and, therefore, we confirm the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on this ground also. Therefore, we dismiss the appeal of the revenue.
In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed.
Order is Pronounced in the open Court on 09.06.2017. Sd/- Sd/- (Dr. A. L. Saini) (Aby. T. Varkey) (डॉ. ए. एल. सैनी) (ऐ. ट�. वाक�) Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated : 9th June, 2017 Jd.(Sr.P.S.) Copy of the order forwarded to: Appellant – ITO, Ward-56(4), Kolkata. 1. Respondent – M/s. Nopany & Sons, 3, Pretoria Street, Kolkata-71. 2 The CIT(A), Kolkata 3. 4. CIT , Kolkata 5. DR, Kolkata Benches, Kolkata /True Copy, By order,
Senior Private Secretary
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Vk Construction vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - IiMadras · 15 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Sri Bhuvaneshwari And Co vs. The Deputy Commissioner (St)Madras · 15 Oct 2026
- Giri Paints vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Madras · 15 Oct 2026
- Rahul Radheshyam Chauhan vs. Union Of INDIA Thru The Sec. Ministry Of Law And Justice And OrsBombay · 15 Oct 2026
- S.Murugesan vs. The Deputy Commercial Tax OfficerMadras · 15 Oct 2026