INDRADEV SHRIVASTAVA vs. I.T.O., JAGDALPUR (CG)

PDF · subscribers
ITA 80/BIL/2015Status: DisposedITAT Raipur19 January 2018AY 1997-983 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that since the original assessment order was modified by the CIT(A) resulting in income below the taxable limit, and the department did not appeal further, the penalty should be cancelled. The assessee's contention that the penalty was unjustified due to the finality of the quantum appeal was accepted.

What were the facts?

The assessee is aggrieved by the confirmation of penalty levied under Section 271(1)(b) for assessment years 1997-98 and 1998-99. The Assessing Officer had issued a notice under Section 148 based on information regarding agricultural and forest produce transactions.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(b) is sustainable when the quantum of income has been reduced to below taxable limits and the department has not challenged the appellate order.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(b),Section 148,Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR

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

Hearing: 18/01

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR

BEFORE S/SHRI N.S SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER

ITA No.80 & 81/Rpr/2015 Assessment Year : 1997-98 & 1998-99

Indradev Shrivastava, Vs. ITO, Jagdalpur (C.G.)- Kondagaon (C.G.) 494001 PAN/GIR No. ACFPS 6736 P (Appellant) .. ( Respondent)

Assessee by : None Revenue by : Mrs. Shabana Parveen, DR

Date of Hearing : 18/01/ 2018 Date of Pronouncement : 19 /01/ 2018

O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, JM These are the appeals filed by the assessee against the order of the

CIT(A)-Raipur, dated 25.03.2015 for the assessment year 1997-98 & 1998-

99.

Since issue involved in both the appeals is common, for the sake of

convenience, we take up the appeal in ITA No.80/Rpr/15 for consideration.

2.

The assessee is aggrieved by the confirmation of penalty of

Rs.10,000/- levied u/s.271(1)(b) of the Act.

3.

Briefly stated the facts are that the Assessing Officer on the basis of

information received from District Authorities regarding transaction in

agricultural and forest produce, issued notice u/s.148 of the Act. Further, he

3 ITA No.80 & 81/Rpr/2015 Assessment Year : 1997-98 & 1998-99 7. None appeared on behalf of the assessee when the case was called for

hearing. However, a paper book has been filed before us. Hence, we

proceed to dispose of the appeals exparte qua the assessee on the basis of

materials available on record and after hearing ld D.R.

8.

Ld D.R. supported the orders of lower authorities. Ld D.R. submitted

that the assessee in an ulterior motive avoided to attend the hearing before

the Assessing Officer, therefore penalty was rightly imposed.

9.

We have heard the rival submissions, perused the orders of lower

authorities and materials available on record. Prima facie, the contention

of the assessee as per the submission filed before us that the assessee

against the original assessment order passed u/s.144 filed appeal before the

CIT(A) and CIT(A) has granted part relief to the assessee. Subsequently,

the Assessing Officer has passed order giving appeal effect to the quantum

appeal and the income is below the taxable limit and no tax is leviable. The

department has not filed appeal against the order of the CIT(A) before the

ITAT and the matter has become final. Considering these facts, it was

pleaded in the written submission that the penalty be cancelled. Reliance

was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of

Hindustan Steel ltd., 83 ITRR 26(SC), wherein, it has been held as under:

5 ITA No.80 & 81/Rpr/2015 Assessment Year : 1997-98 & 1998-99 Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant : Indradev Shrivastava, Kondagaon (C.G.) 2. The Respondent. , Jagdalpur (C.G.)- 494001 3. The CIT(A)- Raipur 4. Pr.CIT- Raipur 5. DR, ITAT, Raipur 6. Guard file. //True Copy//

BY ORDER,

SR.PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT, Raipur

More judgments on Section 271(1)(b)

All 2,912 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(b) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →