SRI PRAKASH CHAND GOYAL,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1825/DEL/2014Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 May 2016AY 2006-073 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that since the quantum assessment was set aside, the penalty levied based on it could not stand. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against a penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The ITAT had previously set aside the quantum assessment for the same assessment year and remanded it back to the AO for fresh adjudication.

What were the issues?

Whether a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be sustained when the underlying assessment has been set aside and remanded for fresh adjudication.

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, DELHI BENCH “F”, NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI H.S. SIDHU & SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI

Date of Hearing: 18-04-2016 Date of Order : 03-05-2016 ORDER ORDER ORDER ORDER

PER PER H.S. SIDHU : JM PER PER H.S. SIDHU : JM H.S. SIDHU : JM H.S. SIDHU : JM

1.

The Assessee has filed this appeal against the impugned order dated 23/1/2014 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XVII, New Delhi for the relevant assessment year 2006-07 on the following ground:-

“That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the authorities below erred in holding the assessee guilty of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and imposing penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The action being arbitrary, erroneous and unjust must be quashed with directions for appropriate relief.”

2.

The facts narrated by the Revenue Authorities are not disputed by both the parties, hence, the same are not repeated here for the sake of convenience.

3.

At the time of hearing, Ld. Counsel of the assessee stated that ITAT vide Order dated 26.05.2014 passed in (AY 2006-07) in assessee’s own case set aside the issue in dispute and restored back to the file of the AO to decide the same afresh. The facts and findings narrated by the ITAT ‘F’ Bench, New Delhi in its Order dated 26.5.2014 passed in ITA No. 5017/Del/2010 (AY 2006-07) in the assessee’s case are given in para 5 at page no. 3 to 4 of the order. For the sake of convenience, the relevant paras are reproduced hereunder:-

5. We have heard rival contentions, perused the material available on record. It does not emerge as to what is the exact allegation to assesss the income of the assessee. Besides, Ld. CIT(A) though has raised list of objections against assessee but it has not been disputed that these objections were not communicated to assessee during hearing of first appeal. In the given facts and circumstances we are of the view that interest of justice will be served if the issue is set aside, restored back to the file of the AO to decide the same afresh keeping our observations in mind, in accordance with law and after affording the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. We order accordingly.

4.

After going through the aforesaid finding of the Tribunal, we are of the view that in the quantum proceedings the issue in dispute has been set aside by this Bench vide order dated 26.05.2014 for fresh consideration, therefore, the penalty in question cannot stand in the eyes of law. Hence, the penalty in dispute stands deleted. However, the AO is at liberty to initiate the fresh penalty proceedings, after the completion of the assessment.

5.

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee stands allowed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 03/05/2016.

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 →