M/S. ROSHAN MOTORS,MUZAFFARNAGAR vs. ITO, MUZAFFARNAGAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5911/DEL/2015Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 March 2016AY 2010-113 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 additions forming the basis of the penalty were set aside, the penalty was no longer maintainable. Therefore, the penalty was directed to be deleted.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal questioned the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c). The additions on which the penalty was based had been set aside by the ITAT for fresh consideration.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the maintainability of a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) when the underlying additions were set aside 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 “I-2 NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI I.C. SUDHIR & SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Gupta, Adv
For Respondent: Shri Subhakant Sahu, Sr. DR

ORDER

PER I.C. SUDHIR: JUDICIAL MEMBER The assessee has questioned sustaining of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 at Rs.61,800 by the Learned CIT(Appeals) on several grounds.

2.

At the outset of hearing, the Learned AR pointed out that the quantum appeal questioning the addition on the basis of which penalty in question has been levied, has been allowed by the ITAT for the statistical purposes vide order dated 02.12.2015 in (A.Y. 2010-11) in the case of assessee, a copy whereof has been made available. The Learned AR submitted that against the returned income of Rs.4,77,890, the assessment 2 was framed at the income of Rs.6,78,780. The assessee had preferred first appeal wherein the additions made by the Assessing Officer were confirmed and separate addition of Rs.2 lacs was made resulting in enhancement of income. Against the said first appellate order, the assessee has preferred appeal before the ITAT which has been allowed for statistical purposes vide order dated 02.012.2015 (supra).

3.

The Learned Senior DR on the other hand tried to justify the first appellate order sustaining the penalty.

4.

Considering the above submissions especially the very additions on the basis of which penalty in question under sec. 271(1)(c) of the Act was levied has been set aside by the ITAT to the file of the Learned CIT(Appeals) for his fresh consideration, hence, the penalty under consideration is now not maintainable. The same is thus directed to be deleted. The grounds involving the issue of validity of penalty levied under sec. 271(1)(c) of the Act at Rs.61,800 are thus allowed.

5.

In result, the appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 22.03.2016 ( PRASHANT MAHARISHI ) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 22/03/2016 Mohan Lal

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 →