M/S RAMAVTAR KRISHNAVTAR,KOTA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , WARD1(3) KOTA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 24/JPR/2023Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 February 2023AY 2015-16Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 24/JPR/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2015-16 M/s Ramavtar Krishnavtar B-29, Bhamashah Mandi, Kota. cuke Vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(3), Kota. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AADFR 1857 P vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Saurabh Harsh (Adv.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)'s order confirmed the appeal was against the penalty order, but the findings within the order related to quantum proceedings and lacked any findings on the penalty order itself. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed its return of income, and the Assessing Officer (AO) completed the assessment with an addition on account of disallowing interest. The AO initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) for alleged concealment of income.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was rightly imposed without proper findings by the CIT(A) on the penalty order itself, despite the appeal being against it.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR

Before: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 24/JPR/2023

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Harsh (Adv.) jktLo dh vksj ls@
Hearing: 22/02/2023Pronounced: 28/02/2023

Per contra, the ld. DR relied on the order of the lower 6. authorities.

7.

We have heard both the parties, perused materials available on record. The Bench noted that in the appeal the assessee has filed u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, aggrieved from the order of the Assessing officer, wherein the ld. CIT(A) order also confirms that the appeal is against the order of u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act as written on first page, but on going through order placed before us, We noted that the findings

1.

M/S Ramavtar Krishnavtar vs. ITO of the ld. CIT(A) order is related to the order of the assessee in quantum proceedings and there is no findings of penalty order. Considering this apparent mistake as per agreement of both the parties the matter is set aside to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to decide afresh as there is no finding of ld. CIT(A) on order of the Assessing Officer passed U/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act in terms of these observation.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 28/02/2023.

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 →