SRI MANOJ KUMAR JAIN,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O WD - 41(1),KOLKATA., KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1029/KOL/2013Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 March 2016AY 2006-072 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that since the original addition was set aside, the penalty imposed in pursuance of that addition did not survive. Therefore, the penalty was liable to be cancelled.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against a penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) for unexplained cash credit. The original addition on which the penalty was based was set aside by the Tribunal.

What were the issues?

Whether a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be sustained when the underlying addition to income has been set aside by the Tribunal.

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, KOLKATA ‘B’ BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Per Shri P.M. Jagtap :- This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XXIV, Kolkata dated 21.01.2013 for the assessment year 2006-07, whereby he confirmed the penalty of Rs.82,37,347/- imposed by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of addition of Rs.2,45,62,196/- made to the total income of the assessee on account of unexplained cash credit.

2.

We have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant material available on record. As submitted by the ld. Counsel for the assessee, the issue relating to the addition made on account of unexplained cash credit was set aside by the Tribunal to the file of the ./2013 Assessment year: 2006-2007 Page 2 of 2 Assessing Officer vide its order dated 15.02.2013 passed in the quantum proceedings in and in the fresh assessment made by the Assessing Officer as per the direction of the Tribunal, the addition on account of unexplained cash credit has not only been repeated by the Assessing Officer but he has also initiated the penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) afresh. Consequently the penalty in question imposed by the Assessing Officer in pursuance of the order originally passed on 30.12.2008, which has been set aside by the Tribunal, does not survive having no legs to stand and the same is liable to be cancelled as agreed even by the ld. D.R. We, therefore, cancel the said penalty and allow this appeal of the assessee.

3.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

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 →