ANAND JESUDAS,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT, COIMBATORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3174/CHNY/2016Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 January 2017AY 2011-124 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(Appeals) and restored it for reconsideration. Consequently, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was also to be reconsidered by the CIT(Appeals).

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer made an addition of ₹42,60,000/- on account of bank deposits not reflected in the salary statement. The appeal against this quantum addition was pending before the CIT(Appeals).

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) should be reconsidered by the CIT(Appeals) when the quantum appeal is pending and the delay in filing has been condoned.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN & SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH

Hearing: 03.01.2017Pronounced: 31.01.2017

O R D E R आदेश आदेश PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 1, Coimbatore dated 23.03.2016 and pertains to the assessment year 2011-12.

2.

Shri N. Vijaykumar, the Ld. representative for the assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer made addition of ₹42,60,000/- being the deposit made in HDFC bank. According to the Ld. representative, the Assessing Officer made addition only on the ground that the deposit in the bank account were not reflected in the salary statement of the assessee. The appeal of the assessee against the quantum addition is now pending before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Therefore, the Ld. representative submitted that this matter may be remitted back to the file of the CIT (Appeals) for reconsideration.

3.

On the contrary, Shri R. Durai Pandian, the Ld. Departmental Representative submitted that when the quantum addition made by the Assessing Officer came before this Tribunal in this Tribunal by an order dated 07.10.2016 remitted back the matter to the file of the CIT (Appeals) for reconsideration. Since, the quantum appeal is pending before CIT (Appeals), the Ld. D.R., submitted that the penalty also may be remitted back to the file of the CIT (Appeals) for reconsideration.

4.

We have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the material available on record. When the quantum of addition is challenged before the CIT (Appeals), the CIT (Appeals) refused to condone the delay of 139 days in filing the appeal. In the appeal before this Tribunal, in fact condoned the delay of 139 days before the CIT (Appeals) and restored the appeal on the file of the CIT (Appeals) and the file is pending before CIT (Appeals) for consideration on merit. Therefore penalty levied by the Assessing Officer under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act,1961 (in short ‘the Act’) was also to be reconsidered by the CIT (Appeals). One of the reasons for confirmation of penalty by the CIT (Appeals) is that the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed due to delay in filing the appeal. Since that order was set aside by this Tribunal and the issue was remitted back to the CIT (Appeals), this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that penalty appeal is also to be reconsidered.

1.

Accordingly the orders of the lower authorities are set aside and the issue of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, is remitted back to the file of the CIT (Appeals). The CIT (Appeals) may consider the matter afresh along with quantum appeal said to be pending with him and thereafter decide in accordance with law after giving reasonable opportunity to the assessee.

5.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced on 31st January, 2017 at Chennai.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →