BALEX PVT.LTD.,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-1(1), BARODA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1845/AHD/2014Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 November 2017AY 2005-062 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) has no basis as the underlying quantum additions were sent back for fresh assessment. Therefore, the penalty appeal was also restored back to the Assessing Officer.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal concerns a penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) for assessment year 2005-06, based on quantum additions of unsecured loans and estimated net profits. The quantum additions were previously restored back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication by a co-ordinate bench.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the validity of a penalty imposed when the additions forming the basis of the penalty were themselves subject to fresh adjudication. The appeal also involved the restoration of penalty proceedings pending finalization of assessment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD “A” BENCH AHMEDABAD

Hearing: 08.11.2017Pronounced: 29.11.2017

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “A” BENCH AHMEDABAD

BEFORE, SHRI S. S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 1845/Ahd/2014 (Assessment Year: 2005-06) Balex Private Limited, 30-31, Navi Jethardi, Karjan- Sinor Road, Baroda - 391240 Appellant Vs. The DCIT, Circle 1(1), Aayakar Bhavn, Baroda Respondent PAN: AAACB7665B

आवेदक क� ओर से/By Assessee : None राज�व क� ओर से/By Revenue : Shri Dinesh Singh, Sr. D.R. सुनवाई क� तार�ख/Date of Hearing : 08.11.2017 घोषणा क� तार�ख/Date of Pronouncement : 29.11.2017

ORDER PER S. S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2005-06 arises against the CIT(A)-I, Baroda’s order dated 21.04.2014 in case no. CAB-I/044/2013-14, affirming Assessing Officer’s action imposing penalty of Rs.11.50lacs pertaining to two quantum addition of Section 68 addition of Rs.30.35lacs as unsecured loans and estimated net profits of Rs.6.05lacs @1% total sales, in proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”.

2.

None appears at assessee’s behest. It is accordingly proceeded ex parte.

ITA No. 1845/Ahd/14 [Balex Private Ltd. vs. DCIT] A.Y. 2005-06 - 2 -

3.

A perusal of the instant case file reveals that the above quantum additions emanated from assessment order dated 19.11.2007. The matter travelled up to the tribunal. A co-ordinate bench in assessee’s quantum appeal ITA No.764/Ahd/2012 decided on 14.06.2016 has restored back both the above quantum issues of unsecured loans addition as well as estimated net profits back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh adjudication. Relevant order forms part of record in the instant case file. The Assessing Officer as well as the CIT(A) have penalized the assessee u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act in the intervening period. We therefore are of the opinion that the impugned penalty does have no legs to stand as of now. We accordingly restore the instant penalty appeal as well back to the Assessing Officer to be decided after finalization of consequential assessment proceedings.

4.

This assessee’s appeal is accepted for statistical purposes.

[Pronounced in the open Court on this the 29th day of November, 2017.]

Sd/- Sd/- (PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA) (S. S. GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad: Dated 29/11/2017 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 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →