M/S MULTITECH TOWERS PVT. LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

PDF · subscribers
ITA 733/CHANDI/2016Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 November 2018AY 2012-134 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 since the assessee had paid the taxes and interest before the penalty was levied, the penalty was not sustainable. The Revenue's cross-objections were dismissed as time-barred and not maintainable.

What were the facts?

The assessee paid taxes and interest before the penalty was levied. The Revenue filed cross-objections which were found to be time-barred and below the monetary limit for appeals.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 271AAA is leviable when taxes and interest on surrendered income are paid before levy. Whether the Revenue's cross-objections are maintainable.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271AAA,Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA No. 733/CHD/2016
C.O. No. 48/Chd/2017

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

आदेश/Order

Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member:

The present appeal by the assessee and corresponding Cross Objections (C.O.) by the Revenue are against the order dated 14.3.2016 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Gurgaon [hereinafter referred to as CIT(A)].

ITA No. -733/Chd/2016 & C.O. 48/Chd/2017 Multitech Towers Pvt.Ltd, Chandigarh 2

ITA No. 733/Chd/2016 – assessee’s appeal

2.

The assessee in this case has agitated the levy of penalty u/s

271AAA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') for non-payment

of tax by the due date.

3.

At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the

assessee had already paid the taxes before levy of penalty in question. That

the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘ACIT Vs. Gebilal Kanhaialal,

HUF’ [2012] 348 ITR 561 (SC) .

4.

The Ld. DR could not produce any distinguishing case laws. It is

pertinent to mention that in the case of ‘ACIT Vs. Gebilal Kanhaialal,

HUF’ (supra) the issue was relating to the imposition of penalty in the

light of the clause (2) of explanation 5 of section 271(1)(c) of the

Income-tax Act, 1961, wherein, the requirement was that the assessee must

pay the due taxes and interest on the surrendered income. Though the

penalty levied in the present case is u/s 271AAA of the Income-tax Act,

1961, however, the issue is the same that the assessee must pay the taxes

and interest on the surrendered income. Since the assessee before the levy

of penalty has already paid the taxes and interest thereupon, hence, in the

light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘ACIT

Vs. Gebilal Kanhaialal, HUF’ (supra), the penalty levied by the lower

authorities is not sustainable and the same is accordingly ordered to be

deleted.

C.O. No.48/Chd/2017 – by the Revenue

5.

Now coming to the Cross objections of the Revenue, it is found that

the same is time barred by 385 days. The Revenue in the Cross objections,

ITA No. -733/Chd/2016 & C.O. 48/Chd/2017 Multitech Towers Pvt.Ltd, Chandigarh 3

however, has agitated the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue that the assessee has not disclosed the manner of the earning of the undisclosed income which is one of the requirement of the provisions of section 271AAA of the Act to escape reasons of the penalty.

6.

The Ld. counsel for the assessee has brought our attention to the Circular No.3 / 2018 of the CBDT dated 11.7.2018 prescribing monetary limit for filing the appeal, wherein, in para 12 of the circular it has also

been clarified that the aforesaid monetary limit will also apply to the Cross objections u/s 253(4) of the Act.

In view of this, since on the monetary limit of the penalty, even if

the Revenue would succeed on this issue, is below the prescribed limit, hence, otherwise the Cross objections of the Revenue are not maintainable. In view of this, the Cross Objections raised by the Revenue are dismissed. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed, whereas, the Cross objection of the Revenue stands dismissed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 20.11.2018.

Sd/- Sd/- (अ�नपूणा� गु�ता / ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (संजय गग� / SANJAY GARG) लेखा सद�य/ Accountant Member �या�यक सद�य/ Judicial Member Dated : 20.11.2018 “आर.के.” आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ�/ The Appellant 2. ��यथ�/ The Respondent 3. आयकर आयु�त/ CIT 4. आयकर आयु�त (अपील)/ The CIT(A) 5. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य आ�धकरण, च�डीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. गाड� फाईल/ Guard File

ITA No. -733/Chd/2016 & C.O. 48/Chd/2017 Multitech Towers Pvt.Ltd, Chandigarh 4

आदेशानुसार/ By order, सहायक पंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar

More judgments on Section 271AAA

All 606 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271AAA →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →