DCIT, CIRCLE-5(1), KOLKATA vs. EMAMI REALTY LIMITED, KOLKATA
In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that since the primary addition forming the basis of the penalty was deleted, no penalty is leviable. Therefore, the order of the CIT(Appeals) deleting the penalty was upheld.
What were the facts?
The Revenue appealed against the CIT(Appeals) order deleting a penalty. The penalty was levied based on an addition made under Section 56(2)(x) of the Income Tax Act, which was later deleted in the quantum appeal.
What were the issues?
Whether penalty under Section 270A is leviable when the underlying addition has been deleted in the quantum appeal.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(KZ) & Shri Sanjay Awasthi
Per Rajpal Yadav, Vice-President (KZ):- The present appeal is directed at the instance of Revenue against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals),
The Registry has pointed out that the appeal is time barred by four days. The Revenue has filed an application for condonation of delay, wherein it has been submitted that actual delay is of only three days and this delay is happened on account of movement of file for necessary approvals. Considering the short period of delay of three days, we deem it appropriate to condone the delay and proceed to decide the appeal on merit.
With the assistance of ld. Representatives, we have gone through the record carefully. It emerges out from the impugned order that penalty has been deleted by the ld. CIT(Appeals) on the ground that addition, which is the foundation for levy of penalty, has already been deleted in the quantum appeal. The finding of the ld. CIT(Appeals) in this regard reads as under:- “In the instant case, appellant filed its income tax return for the A.Y. 2021-22 on 07.03.2022 declaring gross total income of Rs.3,11,97,970/-. In the assessment order passed u/s 143(3), learned assessing Officer has made total addition of Rs.374,53,83,754/- u/s 56(2)(x) of the Act by disregarding the scheme of demerger holding it to be non-tax neutral in excess of jurisdiction. Further, the AO has imposed penalty amounting to Rs.179,40,75,182/- u/s 270A of the Act for misreporting of income”.
Since the quantum addition has already been deleted, therefore, no penalty is leviable upon the assessee and accordingly
In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
More judgments on Section 56(2)(x)
- Amit Kumar Rai, Ramnagar, West Champaran vs Income Tax Officer, Bettiah, BiharITA 223/PAT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- M/S Mama Foods, Alwar vs ACIT, Central Circle, AlwarITA 1311/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Satpal Sethi, Bilaspur vs Income Tax Officer 2(1), BilaspurITA 539/RPR/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed6 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Satpal Sethi, Bilaspur vs Income Tax Officer 2(1), BilaspurITA 539/RPR/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed6 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Gautam Kumar Singh, Etawah vs ITO, Ward 2(2)(5), EtawahITA 256/AGR/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2020-21
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Dwaraka Jewellers, Bhubaneswar vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S N D Waddar And Co vs. Sri Gaurav GuptaKarnataka · 30 Oct 2026
- Kanwar Enterprises Private Limited vs. The Joint Commissioner - State TaxTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S. Bangi Mines And Minerals vs. The State Of TelanganaTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S. Arka Business Solutions vs. Principal Commissioner Of CustomsTelangana · 30 Oct 2026