M/S AJAY KUMAR SOOD ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS,SHIMLA vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

PDF · subscribers
ITA 264/CHANDI/2017Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 June 2018AY 2011-122 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that since the additions on which the penalty was levied were deleted in the quantum appeals, the penalty proceedings do not survive and become infructuous. Therefore, the penalties were not sustainable.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed appeals against the CIT(A)'s orders upholding penalties under Section 271(1)(c). The penalty proceedings were initiated based on additions made in quantum appeals, which were subsequently deleted or set aside.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be sustained when the underlying additions have been deleted. Whether penalty orders are barred by limitation.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

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

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DIVISION BENCH ‘B’, CHANDIGARH

Before: SMT. DIVA SINGH & DR. B.R.R. KUMAR

For Appellant: Shri. Sudhir Sehgal, Shri. Dinesh Sood
Hearing: 24/05/2018Pronounced: 15/06/2018

PER BENCH :

Both the above appeals have been filed by the Assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-3, Gurgaon dt. 22/11/2016.

Grounds of appeal in ITA No. 263/CHD/2017 for A.Y. 2008-09: 1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts of the case by upholding penalty Under section 271(1)(c) imposed by the Ld. A.O. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts of the case by upholding penalty orders which are barred by limitation. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts of the case by upholding penalty orders without giving effect to relief of Rs. 1,23,74,607/- given by the Ld. CIT(A) in quantum additions where addition was made on basis of clerical error in figure of turnover and was duly set aside in appeal. 4. The CIT(A) has erred in law and facts of the case by upholding penalty Under section 271(1)(c) for additions made under deeming provisions of Section 69C. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts of the case by passing ex-parte orders even when the quantum additions are subject matter of appeal before the Hon’ble ITAT.

Grounds of appeal in ITA No. 263/CHD/2017 for A.Y. 2011-12:

1.

The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts of the case by upholding penalty Under section 271(1)(c) imposed by the Ld. A.O.

2.

The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts of the case by upholding penalty orders which are time barred. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts of the case by upholding penalty Under section 271(1)(c) for additions made under deeming provisions of Section 69C. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts of the case by upholding penalty orders without giving effect to relief of Rs. 1,75,00,000/- given by the Ld. CIT(A) in quantum additions. 5. The Ld. CIT(|A) has erred in law and facts of the case by passing ex-parte orders even when the quantum additions are subject matter of appeal before the Hon’ble ITAT, Chandigarh.

2.

For the A.Y. 2008-09 2.1 The addition made of Rs. 1,23,74,607/- stands deleted in the quantum appeal filed by the assessee. Hence the penalty proceedings do not survive and becomes in fructuous.

3.

For the A.Y. 2011-12

3.1 The addition made of Rs. 1,75,00,000/- stands deleted in the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) which has been upheld by the ITAT. Hence the penalty proceedings do not survive and becomes in fructuous.

4.

As a result, both the above appeals are allowed.

Order pronounced in the open Court.

Sd/- Sd/- (DIVA SINGH) (DR. B.R.R. KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated : 15/06/2018 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 →