M/S. BIJAY KUMAR MOHAPATRA,BHADRAK vs. ITO, BHADRAK

ITA 337/CTK/2015Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack31 August 2017AY 2003-044 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that since the Hon'ble High Court admitted the appeals on substantial questions of law, the issue was debatable, and therefore, no penalty was leviable. The penalty orders were set aside.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer added certain amounts to the assessee's income for AY 2003-04 and 2004-05, which were confirmed by the CIT(A) and Tribunal. Subsequently, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was levied.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is leviable when the additions made to income are subject to appeal admitted on substantial questions of law.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 145

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK

Before: S/SHRI N.S SAINI & PAVAN KUMAR GADALE

For Appellant: Shri B.R.Panda, AR
For Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR
Hearing: 30/08

Per N.S.Saini, AM

These are appeals filed by the assessee against the separate orders

of the CIT(A)-Cuttack, both dated 23.4.2015 for the assessment years

2003-04 & 2004-05. 2. In both the appeals, the common ground taken is that the CIT(A)

erred in confirming the levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act of Rs.2,58,396/- for the assessment year 2003-04 and Rs.3,13,545/- for the assessment year 2004-05. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings found that the assessee had stated Asse ssment Years : 2 003 -04 & 20 04- 05 that security deposit receivable of Rs.4,63,240/- but had not shown the withheld amount receivable of Rs.2,33,

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

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 →