MR.GOVINDBHAI R.CHAUDHARY,AHMEDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2360/AHD/2015Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 October 2017AY 2009-102 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that since the quantum proceedings related to the addition were remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, the penalty proceedings also lacked a basis. Therefore, the penalty issue was remitted back to the Assessing Officer.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer imposed a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) based on a quantum addition of short-term capital gains. The assessee's appeal challenges this penalty.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be sustained when the underlying quantum addition is subject to 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, AHMEDABAD “C” BENCH AHMEDABAD

Hearing: 03.10.2017Pronounced: 12.10.2017

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “C” BENCH AHMEDABAD

BEFORE, SHRI S. S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 2360/Ahd/2015 (Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/s. Govindbhai R. Chaudhary, L/106/1263, Shree Nagar Apartment, Sola Road, Ahmedabad Appellant Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(2), Ahmedabad Respondent PAN: AAHPC0832H

आवेदक क� ओर से/By Assessee : P. G. Tulsian, A.R. राज�व क� ओर से/By Revenue : Soniya Kumar, Sr. D.R. सुनवाई क� तार�ख/Date of Hearing : 03.10.2017 घोषणा क� तार�ख/Date of Pronouncement : 12.10.2017

ORDER PER S. S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2009-10 arises against the CIT(A)-4, Ahmedabad’s order dated 05th June, 2015 in case no. CIT(A)- 4/241/ITO.6(2)/14-15, upholding Assessing Officer’s action imposing penalty of Rs.1,08,880/-, in proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”. Heard both sides. Case file perused.

2.

Learned counsel representing assessee states at the outset that both the lower authorities have imposed the impugned penalty pertaining to quantum addition of

ITA No. 2360/Ahd/15 [M/s. Govindbhai R . Chaudhary vs. ITO] A.Y. 2009-10 - 2 -

Rs.6.05lacs in the nature of short term capital gains arising from sale of non agricultural land. He thereafter files before us a co-ordinate bench quantum order in assessee’s CO No. 214/Ahd/2012 decided on 18.07.2016 remitting the issue of disallowance of short term capital loss of Rs.2,89,332/- against the above short term capital gains back to the Assessing Officer for afresh adjudication. His case therefore is that quantum proceedings are yet to be finalized. Learned Departmental Representative fails to dispute all these intervening developments on quantum side during the pendency of the instant penalty appeal. We therefore observe that the impugned penalty has no legs to stand as of now. We therefore remit the instant penalty issue as well back to Assessing Officer’s file to be finalized after the above quantum proceedings. The assessee’s sole substantive ground is accepted for statistical purposes.

3.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

[Pronounced in the open Court on this the 12th day of October, 2017.]

Sd/- Sd/- (MANISH BORAD) (S. S. GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad: Dated 12/10/2017

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 →