RAMESH CHAND AND GROUP AOP,HARIDWAR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HARIDWAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 14/DDN/2024Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun23 April 2025AY 2007-08Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member & Sh. M. Balaganesh (Accountant Member)2 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) has no basis as the quantum addition/disallowance itself, which formed the basis for the penalty, had already been reversed by the Tribunal in an earlier order.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal pertains to a penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) for the Assessment Year 2007-08. The penalty was imposed by the lower authorities.

What were the issues?

Whether a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can sustain when the underlying addition or disallowance has been deleted by a higher appellate authority.

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, DEHRADUN BENCH, DEHRADUN

Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: CA &
Hearing: 17.03.2025Pronounced: 23.04.2025

Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Ramesh Chand and Group AOP, Vs CIT(A)/NFAC, New Mandir Lane, Main Bazar, Delhi Bhagwanpur, Tehsil Roorkee, Distt. Haridwar (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AABAR9603A Assessee by: Sh. Hemant Arora, CA & Sh. Pavitra Arora, CA Revenue by: Sh. A. S. Rana, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 17.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 23.04.2025 ORDER Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member:

This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2007-08, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1058782356(1) dated 15.12.2023, in proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

2.

Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.

3.

It emerges during the course of hearing that so far as the assessee’s sole substantive ground seeking to reverse both the lower authorities respective findings levying section 271(1)(c) penalty is concerned, the same hardly requires our detailed adjudication as the tribunal’s earlier order dated 11.08.2017 in

4.

This clinching factual position has gone un-rebutted from the Revenue side. That being the case, we are of the considered view that the impugned penalty has got no legs to stand once the quantum addition has been deleted by the tribunal. The impugned penalty also follows the suit in very terms.

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 →