HANUMAN STEEL WIRES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 3(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1544/KOL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 September 2024AY 2012-2013Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member andShri Sanjay Awasthi (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that since the quantum additions were reduced, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) should also be reduced proportionally. The penalty was ordered to be reduced to reflect the tax on the reduced addition amount.

What were the facts?

The assessee initially declared a loss, but the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 1,10,00,000/- for unexplained share capital. Penalty proceedings were initiated under Section 271(1)(c). Subsequently, the addition was reduced to Rs. 32,00,000/- after the matter was restored to the AO.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) should be reduced when the quantum addition forming the basis of the penalty was significantly reduced.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 143(3),Section 154

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH KOLKATA

Before: Shri Sanjay GargandShri Sanjay Awasthi

order :September 26, 2024 आदेश / ORDER संजय गग�, �याियकसद�य�ारा/ Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member: The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee agitating against the levy/confirmation of penalty of Rs.35,68,950/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’).

2.

The brief facts are that the assessee filed its return of income declaring a loss of Rs.25,70,481/-. The Assessing Officer in the assessment carried out u/s 143(3) of the Act made the addition of Rs.1,10,00,000/- on account of unexplained share capital and share premium vide order dated 21.03.2015. Penalty proceedings were initiated u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and the impugned penalty was imposed. In the quantum proceedings, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition so made by the Assessing Officer. In appeal against the levy of penalty, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the penalty so levied by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. In the meanwhile, the assessee Assessment Year: 2012-13 Hanuman Steel Wires Pvt. Ltd.

1.

preferred appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal vide order dated 19.06.2018 passed in restored the entire matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for afresh assessment order. Thereafter, in the fresh assessment proceedings, the addition was restricted to Rs.32,00,000/-. Thereafter, an application u/s 154 of the Act was moved by the assessee to the Assessing Officer pleading that while assessing the income of the assessee, the Assessing Officer had not given set off of returned loss of Rs.25,70,481/-. The contention of the assessee was found correct and the assessee was given the set off of Rs.25,70,481/ and the revised total income of the assessee was assessed at Rs.6,29,519/-.

3.

Now, in the present appeal against the levy of penalty, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that since the addition of Rs.1,10,00,000/- had been reduced to Rs.32,00,000/- only, therefore, the tax sought to be awaited has also reduced and accordingly, the penalty amount is also liable to be reduced. The ld. Counsel has not advanced any argument on merits but the only submissions is that the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act be accordingly reduced.

4.

We find merit in the above contention of the assessee. The very basis of the impugned penalty is the quantum additions made by the Assessing Officer. Since, the quantum additions have been reduced to Rs.32,00,000/-, therefore, the penalty is also liable to be reduced accordingly, to the extent of tax sought to be awaited. The Assessing Officer has levied the impugned penalty @ 100% of the tax sought to be awaited. We accordingly order that the penalty be reduced taking into consideration the reduced amount of additions at the same rate i.e. @ 100% of the tax sought to be awaited.

Assessment Year: 2012-13 Hanuman Steel Wires Pvt. Ltd.

5.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed.

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 →