M/S SML ISUZU LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. ACIT, CHANDIGARH

PDF · subscribers
ITA 992/CHANDI/2013Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 July 2018AY 2006-072 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that since the underlying quantum addition was deleted, the consequential penalty had no basis and must also be deleted.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against penalties levied by lower authorities. The penalty was consequential to quantum additions that were subsequently deleted by the ITAT in a related case.

What were the issues?

Whether a penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) can survive if the quantum addition on which it was based has been deleted.

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, DIVISION BENCH ‘B’, CHANDIGARH

Before: SHRI SANJAY GARG & MS.ANNAPURNA GUPTA

For Appellant: Shri. Sachin Jain
For Respondent: Shri. Jagdeep Goyal
Hearing: 20/06/2018Pronounced: 11/07/2018

PER BENCH:

Both the above appeals have been filed by the Assessee against the separate orders of the Ld. CIT(A) Chandigarh relating to the confirmation of the penalty levied by the lower authorities.

2.

At the outset the Ld. Counsel for the assesee has furnished a copy of the order of ITAT Chandigarh Bench in case of M/s Swaraj Mazda Ltd. and Others dt. 14/05/2018 and has further submitted that the quantum addition in relation to which the impugned penalty was levied by the lower authorities stood deleted. He therefore has submitted that the consequential penalty should also be deleted.

3.

Ld. DR has also could not rebutted to the above submissions of the Ld. Counsel of the assessee.

4.

Since the quantum addition based on which the impugned penalty has been levied has already been deleted by the Tribunal in case of M/s Swaraj Mazda Ltd. and Others (supra). Hence the consequential penalty having no leg to stand is liable to be set aside / deleted. In view of this the impugned penalty levied by the lower authorities under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is ordered to be deleted.

5.

As a result, both the appeals of the Assessee are allowed.

Order pronounced in the open Court.

Sd/- Sd/- (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (SANJAY GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated : 11/07/2018 AG Copy to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) 4. The CIT 5. The DR

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 →