KRISHAN KUMAR TARACHAND,PUNE vs. ITO (IT) WARD -2, PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 513/PUN/2024Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 May 2024AY 2010-11Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)/NFAC had allowed the quantum appeal, deleting the addition. Therefore, in light of the deletion of the addition, the penalty order needed reconsideration.

What were the facts?

The assessee did not file a return of income for AY 2010-11. The AO completed assessment under section 144 r.w.s. 147, treating a property sale as Long Term Capital Gains and initiated penalty proceedings.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty under section 271(1)(c) is sustainable when the primary addition on which it was based has been deleted. Whether the matter requires remand to the Assessing Officer in light of the deletion of the quantum addition.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 144,Section 147,Section 275(1A)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE

Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

For Respondent: Shri Manoj Tripathi
Hearing: 29.04.2024Pronounced: 10.05.2024

ORDER

PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM:

1.

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 09.07.2023 passed by Ld CIT(A)/NFAC for the assessment year 2010-11.

2.

The appellant raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1. (a) The Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) erred in law and in facts in dismissing the appeal filed against penalty order u/s. 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 25.06.2018 merely on the premise that the appeal was filed belatedly and without providing reasonable opportunity of being heard. (b) The Ld. NFAC erred in law in dismissing the appeal filed against penalty order u/s. 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 25.06.2018 levying a penalty of Rs.6,09,760/- without Ld. NFAC’s order dated 09.07.2023 had already received full relief in quantum appeal which was the sole basis for levying penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961.

2. Each of the above grounds are independent & without prejudice to each other.

3. The appellant craves leaves to add, amend, alter, or delete any or all ground of appeal.”

3. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant assessee is an individual. Being NON Resident & no taxable income, No regular Return of Income under the provisions of section 139 of the IT Act for the assessment year 2010-11 was filed. However, on receipt of the information that the appellant assessee had sold a property located at Flat No.1004, 10th Floor, Anupum Apartments, NDA Pashan Road, Bhavdhan Kurd, Pune for a consideration of Rs.31,20,000/- during the previous year relevant to the assessment year under consideration, a notice u/s 148 of the IT Act was issued by the Assessing Officer, after recording reasons. In response to notice u/s 148, no return of income was filed by the appellant. Further, notices u/s 142(1) was issued on 06.10.2017 and 15.12.2017, but the assessee failed to comply with the said notices issued u/s 142(1) of the IT Act. Based on the information, the assessment was completed by the Assessing Officer u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the IT Act on 22.12.2017 determining total income of Rs.31,20,000/- under the head “Long Term Capital Gains”, on the

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 →