BAKERI ENGINEERS & INDUSTRIES LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-1, AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1884/AHD/2014Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 July 2017AY 1994-953 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 quantum additions, which formed the basis for the penalties, were subsequently deleted by a coordinate bench of the Tribunal, the penalties had no legal basis. Therefore, the penalties were also deleted.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer imposed penalties under Section 271(1)(c) based on quantum additions made for the assessment years 1994-95 to 1996-97. These additions were related to the assessee's Sampada scheme and residential projects.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether penalties imposed under Section 271(1)(c) could sustain when the underlying quantum additions were deleted by a higher appellate authority.

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, AHMEDABAD “A” BENCH AHMEDABAD

Hearing: 24.07.2017Pronounced: 26.07.2017

PER S. S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

These three assessee’s appeals for assessment years 1994-95 to 1996- 97 arise from the CIT(A)-II, Ahmedabad’s separate orders; all dated 14.03.2014 passed in case nos. CIT(A)-II/DCIT Circle-1/362/13-14, CIT(A)- II/DCIT Circle-1/276/14 & CIT(A)-II/DCIT Circle-1/277/13-14, upholding Assessing Officer’s identical action imposing penalties of Rs.4,07,906/-,

ITA Nos. 1884 to 1886/Ahd/14 (Bakeri Engineers & Industries Ltd. vs. DCIT) A.Ys. 1994-95 to 1995-96 - 2 -

Rs.5,70,400/- and Rs.4,75,224/-; respectively, in proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”.

2.

Learned counsel representing assessee submits at the outset that the impugned penalties arise from quantum additions made by the Assessing Officer after concluding that it ought to follow mercantile system of accounting than the receipt based one qua its Sampada scheme involving the corresponding residential projects namely Sakar -I to III, Sampada and Suramya. He then informs us that the Assessing Officer’s abovestated quantum addition involved respective sums of Rs.8,86,754/-, Rs.12,40,000/- and Rs.10,33,096/- in respect of the impugned assessment years. The assessee thereafter produces before us a copy of this tribunal’s order in quantum appeals ITA Nos. 187 to 189/Ahd/2011 decided on 08.08.2016 deleting the above three additions. The Revenue fails to dispute all these developments during the pendency of instant appeals. We thus conclude that the impugned penalties have no legs to stand since quantum addition(s) stand deleted. We follow the suit herein as well and delete the impugned penalties.

3.

These three assessee’s appeals are allowed.

[Pronounced in the open Court on this the 26th day of July, 2017.]

Sd/- Sd/- (N. K. BILLAIYA) (S. S. GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad: Dated 26/07/2017 True Copy S.K.SINHA आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. राज�व / Revenue 2. आवेदक / Assessee 3. संबं�धत आयकर आयु�त / Concerned CIT

ITA Nos. 1884 to 1886/Ahd/14 (Bakeri Engineers & Industries Ltd. vs. DCIT) A.Ys. 1994-95 to 1995-96 - 3 -

4.

आयकर आयु�त- अपील / CIT (A) 5. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाड� फाइल / Guard file. By order/आदेश से,

उप/सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, अहमदाबाद ।

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 →