M/S SAROVAR ENTERPRISES,PANVEL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2, PANVEL

PDF · subscribers
ITA 811/PUN/2024Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 June 2024AY 2010-11Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)4 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 noted that the additions forming the basis of the penalty had already been deleted by a previous Tribunal order. Therefore, the penalty no longer survived.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against a penalty order. The penalty was levied based on additions made by the Assessing Officer.

What were the issues?

Whether a penalty can survive if the underlying additions on which it was based have been deleted.

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, PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE

Before: SHRI R. K. PANDA & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

For Appellant: Shri Hari Krishan
For Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak, Addl.CIT

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 02.05.2023 of the CIT(A) / NFAC, Delhi relating to assessment year 2010-11.

2.

Although a number of grounds have been raised by the assessee, however, these all relate to the order of CIT(A) / NFAC confirming the penalty of Rs.2,33,750/- levied by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

3.

There is a delay of 293 days in filing of this appeal before the Tribunal, for which the assessee has filed a condonation application along with an affidavit explaining the reasons for such delay. After considering the contents of the condonation application filed along with the affidavit and after hearing both the sides, the delay in filing of the appeal by the assessee is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication.

4.

The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that the Tribunal vide order dated 21.03.2018 has deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer which is the basis for levy of penalty and therefore, the penalty does not survive. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee accordingly submitted that the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) / NFAC should be deleted.

5.

The Ld. DR fairly conceded that since the Tribunal has already deleted the addition, therefore, penalty does not survive.

6.

After hearing both the sides, we find the various additions made by the Assessing Officer which are the basis for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act stands deleted by the Tribunal vide order dated 21.03.2018 for assessment year 2010-11. Since the additions have already been deleted by the Tribunal, therefore, the penalty does not survive. We, therefore, set aside the order of CIT(A) / NFAC and direct the Assessing Officer to cancel the penalty. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed.

7.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 12th June, 2024.

Sd/- Sd/- (VINAY BHAMORE) (R. K. PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT पुणे Pune; दिन ांक Dated : 12th June, 2024 GCVSR आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order is forwarded to: अपीलार्थी / The Appellant; 1. 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent 3. The concerned Pr.CIT, Pune 4. DR, ITAT, ‘B’ Bench, Pune 5. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune

S.No. Details Date Initials Designation 1 Draft dictated on 12.06.2024 Sr. PS/PS 2 Draft placed before author 12.06.2024 Sr. PS/PS Draft proposed & placed before the 3 JM/AM Second Member Draft discussed/approved by Second 4 AM/AM Member 5 Approved Draft comes to the Sr. PS/PS Sr. PS/PS 6 Kept for pronouncement on Sr. PS/PS 7 Date of uploading of Order Sr. PS/PS 8 File sent to Bench Clerk Sr. PS/PS Date on which the file goes to the Head 9 Clerk 10 Date on which file goes to the A.R. 11 Date of Dispatch of order

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 →