ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), SURAT, SURAT vs. SEJAL JEWELLERS PVT. LTD.,, SURAT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 292/SRT/2023Status: HeardITAT Surat15 September 2023AY 2012-13Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that since the addition forming the basis of the penalty was deleted, the penalty order would not survive. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) deleting the penalty was affirmed.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 5,01,81,940/- under Section 68. A penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was levied based on this addition. The addition was subsequently deleted by the ITAT in the quantum appeal.

What were the issues?

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

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Assessee represented by Shri Mehul Shah, C.A. Department represented by Shri S.M. Keshkamat, CIT-DR Date of Institution of Appeal 27/04/2023 Date of hearing 15/09/2023 Date of pronouncement 15/09/2023 Order under Section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER: PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of learned National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC)/Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short, the ld. CIT(A)) dated 27/02/2023 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13. The Revenue has raised following grounds of appeal: “1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the penalty of Rs. 1,62,71,168/- levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act without appreciating the fact that the Revenue has challenged the decision of Hon’ble ITAT dated 28/02/2022 in the quantum appeal and further appeal has filed before the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court.

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the penalty Rs. 1,62,71,168/- without deciding the grounds of appeal on merits.

3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the Assessing Officer.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →