THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S.AAKASH OIL FIELD SERVICES PVT. LTD., AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3071/AHD/2015Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 December 2017AY 2011-122 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that since the quantum disallowance that formed the basis for the penalty was already deleted and upheld by a co-ordinate bench, the penalty had no basis to stand. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the deletion of penalty imposed for excess depreciation claimed on trucks and truck-mounted equipment. The penalty was levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be sustained when the underlying quantum addition has been deleted and upheld by higher authorities.

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, AHMEDABAD “B” BENCH AHMEDABAD

Hearing: 28.12.2017Pronounced: 28.12.2017

PER S. S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

This Revenue’s appeal for assessment year 2011-12 arises against the CIT(A)-1, Ahmedabad’s order dated 24.08.2015, in case no. CIT(A)-VI/ACIT, Cir- 1/298/2014-15 (Now – 428/CIT(A)-1), reversing Assessing Officer’s action imposing penalty of Rs.21,77,416/- relating to quantum disallowance of excess depreciation claimed on trucks and truck mounted equipments of Rs.64,06,050/-

ITA No. 3071/Ahd/15 [DCIT vs. Aakash Oil Field Service Pvt. Ltd.] - 2 - A.Y. 2011-12

made in assessment order dated 30.01.2013, in proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”. Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

It emerges at the outset that the Revenue has lost its case in quantum proceedings since the CIT(A)-VI, Ahmedabad’s order deleting the above disallowance stands upheld in a co-ordinate’s bench order in appeal ITA No. 3207/Ahd/2014 dismissed on 23.08.2017. Learned Departmental Representative fails to dispute that the impugned penalties has no legs to stand now because of all these intervening quantum developments. We therefore decline Revenue’s sole substantive ground raised in the instant appeal seeking to revive the above impugned penalty.

3.

This Revenue’s appeal is dismissed.

[Pronounced in the open Court on this the 28th day of December, 2017.]

Sd/- Sd/- (MANISH BORAD) (S. S. GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad: Dated 28/12/2017 True Copy S.K.SINHA आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. राज�व / Revenue 2. आवेदक / Assessee 3. संबं�धत आयकर आयु�त / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु�त- अपील / CIT (A) 5. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाड� फाइल / Guard file. By order/आदेश से,

उप/सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, अहमदाबाद ।

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 →