DCIT, LUDHIANA vs. SH. ROHIT KUMAR, LUDHIANA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that since the addition made by the CIT(Appeals), on which the penalty was levied, had been deleted by the ITAT in a separate order, there was no basis for levying the penalty. Therefore, the penalty was directed to be deleted.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal was against a penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) by the CIT(Appeals) on an income enhancement of Rs. 1 lac. This enhancement was made by the CIT(Appeals) in relation to a disallowance of expenditure. The penalty levied was Rs. 30,000.
What were the issues?
Whether a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be sustained when the underlying addition to income, on which the penalty was based, has been deleted by a higher appellate authority.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DIVISION BENCH ‘SMD’, CHANDIGARH
Before: SHRI SANJAY GARG & MS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH ‘SMD’, CHANDIGARH
BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.1209/Chd/2017 (Assessment Year : 2000-01) Sh.Sanjeev Gupta Prop.M/s Jyoti Steel, Vs. The A.C.I.T., C/o Vinod Gard, 577-B, Aggar Nagar, Circle-V, Ludhiana. Ludhiana. PAN: AANPG6524E (Appellant) (Respondent)
Appellant by : S/Shri Nikhil Goyal, CA & Ashok Goyal, CA Respondent by : Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of hearing : 03.07.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 07.07.2018
ORDER PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA, A.M. :
This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against
the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-
2, Ludhiana (hereinafter referred to as CIT(Appeals)) dated
30.6.2017, levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax
Act,1961, (hereinafter referred to as “Act”) relating to
assessment year 2000-01.
At the outset, the Ld. counsel for assessee invited our
attention to the impugned order of the CIT(Appeals) dated
31-03-17, wherein penalty of Rs.30,000/- was imposed by
the CIT(Appeals).It was pointed out therefrom that the
penalty was levied on the enhancement made by the CIT(A)
to the income of the assessee to the extent of Rs.1 lac. It
2 ITA No.1209/Chd/2017 A.Y. 2000-01
was pointed out by the Ld. counsel for assessee that in
appellate proceedings before the Ld.CIT(Appeals) against the
order passed u/s 148 r.w.s. 144 of the Act, notice of
enhancement of income was issued to the assessee on
account of disallowance of expenditure incurred relating
to levy of penalty by the Customs Authorities and the
enhancement thereafter was made by the CIT(Appeals) after
giving due opportunity of hearing. Thereafter satisfaction
for initiating penalty proceedings was recorded by the
Ld.CIT(Appeals) and in pursuance to the same necessary
notices were issued to the assessee. In the penalty
proceedings before the CIT(Appeals) due reply was filed by
the assessee after considering which, penalty @ 100% of the
tax sought to be evaded on the enhancement made by the
CIT(Appeals) of Rs.1 lac was levied amounting to
Rs.30,000/-. The Ld. counsel for assessee pointed out that
the impugned disallowance made by the Ld.CIT(Appeals)
had been deleted by the I.T.A.T. in its order passed in ITA
No.958/Chd/2017 dated 21.12.2017. Copy of the order was
placed before us.
The Ld. DR fairly conceded that the addition made by
the CIT(Appeals) by enhancing the income of the assessee
by Rs.1 lac, had been deleted by the I.T.A.T. in the said
order.
In view of the same, we find that since the addition
made on which penalty was levied by the CIT(Appeals)
3 ITA No.1209/Chd/2017 A.Y. 2000-01
having been deleted by the I.T.A.T., no basis remains at all
for levying penalty and the same is directed to be deleted.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is, therefore,
allowed.
Order pronounced in the Open Court.
Sd/- Sd/-
(SANJAY GARG) (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated : 9th July, 2018 *Rati* Copy to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) 4. The CIT 5. The DR
Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Chandigarh
More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
- Shalin Jayantbhai Desai, Vadodara vs ACIT, Circle-4(2), Vadodara Present…ITA 2569/AHD/2026[2010-11]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2010-11
- Neo Structo Construction P. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs The Pr. CIT- 3, AhmedabadITA 1216/AHD/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2370/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2369/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Tankala Soumya vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Rayagada Circle, RayagadaOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Pooja, Town Hallroad, Cuttack vs. State Tax Officer, Cuttack-I West Circle,CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Chicvogue Fashions Lip, Ganjam vs. State Tax Officer Bhubaneswar- Ii CircleOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Priya, Townhall Road, Cuttack vs. Superintendent Cuttack- I Range, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Dwaraka Jewellers, Bhubaneswar vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 31 Oct 2026