NAV VIDYA NIKETAN SHIKSHAN SANSTHA,AMRAVATI vs. ITO WARD-2 EXEMP NAGPUR, NAGPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 392/NAG/2023Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 April 2024AY 2011-12Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member)2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot stand once the underlying quantum addition has been deleted. Therefore, the penalty is rendered unsustainable.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal concerns a penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. This penalty was based on a quantum addition made under Section 69C. However, the corresponding quantum addition has since been deleted by the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be sustained when the quantum addition on which it was based has been deleted by a higher appellate authority.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 69C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, NAGPUR “SMC” BENCH :NAGPUR [VIRTUAL HEARING]

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

Hearing: 22.03.2024Pronounced: 25.04.2024

ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2011-12, arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short the “NFAC”] Delhi’s Din and Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1054995289(1), dated 09.08.2023, involving proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.

2.

Coming to the assessee’s sole substantive grievance challenging the correctness of both the learned lower authorities action levying penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act of Rs.23,03,904/-, it emerges at the outset, that the same pertains to section 69C quantum addition of Rs.74.56 lakhs which now stands deleted in the CIT(A)-3, Nagpur’s Din and Order No.ITBA/APL/S/250/2023-

1.

2 ITA.No.392/NAG/2023 24/1058438291(1), dated 04.12.2023 passed after the NFAC’s lower appellate order impugned herein.

3.

Learned counsel has invited my attention to this quantum lower appellate order forming part of the case record. The Revenue is equally fair in not disputing these intervening developments. Faced with this situation, I hereby conclude that the impugned penalty has no legs to stand once the CIT(A) has deleted the corresponding quantum addition itself. Ordered accordingly.

4.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed in above terms.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 25.04.2024.

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 →