SH. YOGENDER PRAKASH GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4266/DEL/2014Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 September 2015AY 2004-053 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the additions forming the basis of the penalty have been restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Therefore, the penalty order was also set aside and the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh disposal.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal concerns a penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) for the assessment year 2004-05. The penalty was based on additions made by the AO under Sections 68 and 69 of the Act.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be sustained when the additions forming its basis have been restored for fresh adjudication. The validity of the penalty in light of the pending quantum proceedings.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 68,Section 69

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES : SMC-I : NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI R.S. SYAL

For Appellant: Shri Somil Agarwal, Advocate &, Shri Abhishek Anand
For Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Pronounced: 30.09.2015

Date of Hearing : 30. 09.2015 Date of Pronouncement : 30.09.2015 ORDER This appeal by the assessee arises out of the order passed by the CIT(A) on 20.5.2014 upholding the penalty of Rs.1,52,935/- imposed by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called ‘the Act’) in relation to the assessment year 2004-05.

2.

I have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. It is observed that the AO made addition of Rs.5 lac

68 of the Act and a further addition of Rs.25,000/- u/s 69 of the Act.

The instant penalty has been imposed u/s 271(1)(c) with reference to these two additions. It has been brought to my notice that the Tribunal, vide its order dated 7.5.2015 in has restored the additions to the file of CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. In view of the fact that the basis of penalty, being the above referred two additions, have been restored to the file of ld. CIT(A), I am of the considered opinion that it would be in the fitness of things if the impugned order is also set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the first appellate authority for disposing it afresh as per law in accordance with the final view taken by him in quantum proceedings. I order accordingly.

3.

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →