PARSHV HOUSING,BHOPAL vs. ITO NFAC, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 280/IND/2024Status: DisposedITAT Indore12 August 2024AY 2015-16Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO (Judicial Member), SHRI B.M. BIYANI (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter to the AO. The penalty is to be re-adjudicated after the outcome of the pending quantum appeal is known.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal against a penalty order under Section 271(1)(c) was dismissed by the CIT(A) for non-prosecution. The quantum appeal against the main assessment order was still pending before the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty order is sustainable when the quantum appeal is pending and the assessee's appeal before CIT(A) was dismissed for non-prosecution without considering the pending quantum proceedings.

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, INDORE BENCH, INDORE

For Appellant: Shri S.S. Solanki, AR
For Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR
Hearing: 12.08.2024Pronounced: 12.08.2024

This appeal by assessee is directed against the order dated 22.02.2024 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi, arising from penalty order passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for A.Y.2015-16. The assesse has raised following grounds of appeal:

“1 Ground 1. That in the facts and circumstances of the case the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c)is bad in law ITANo.280/Ind/2024 Parshv Housing since there is no such case of concealment of income and should be annulled.

2.

That in the facts and circumstances of the case the appellate penalty order itself is passed in haste since the appellate order against the main assessment order has not been passed in the case of the appellant and should be considered as void ab initio.

3.

That in the facts and circumstances of the case the penalty order and appellate order is passed without giving any opportunity to the appellant which is bad in law and against the principles of natural justice.

4. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter vary and or delete all or any of above grounds.”

2. At the time of hearing Ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee due to non- prosecution. He has pointed out that even the quantum appeal against the reassessment order passed u/s 147 is still pending before the CIT(A). Thus, Ld. AR has submitted that the impugned order of the CIT(A) is not sustainable and liable to be set aside and the matter may be remanded to the record of the AO for reconsideration of levy of penalty after the outcome of the quantum appeal pending before the CIT(A).

3. On the other hand, Ld. DR has raised no objection if the matter is remanded to the record of the AO for re-adjudication as per the outcome of the quantum appeal pending before the CIT(A).

4.

We have considered the rival submissions as well as relevant material on record. The CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non-prosecution when there was no response to three notices issued by the CIT(A). At the outset, we note that the CIT(A) Page 2 of 3

ITANo.280/Ind/2024 Parshv Housing has passed impugned order without considering outcome of the quantum proceedings in the appeal pending before the CIT(A). Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case the impugned order of CIT(A) is set aside and the matter is remanded to the record of the AO for re-adjudication of levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) after considering outcome of the quantum appeal pending before the CIT(A).

5.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on conclusion of hearing 12.08.2024.

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 →