ITO, WARD-2(1)(4), SURAT vs. TIRUPATI ENERGY SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD, SURAT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 97/SRT/2020Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 January 2022AY 2012-132 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that since the original addition under Section 68 was deleted, the penalty levied based on that addition must also be deleted. The CIT(A)'s order deleting the penalty was upheld.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the deletion of penalty by the CIT(A). The penalty was levied on an addition made under Section 68, which was subsequently deleted by the ITAT in a prior appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be sustained when the primary addition under Section 68 has been deleted by the Tribunal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SURAT BENCH, SURAT

Before: SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM &DR. A.L.SAINI, AM

For Appellant: Shri Sapnesh R Sheth, C.A
Hearing: 18/01/2022Pronounced: 27/01/2022

Assessee by : Shri Sapnesh R Sheth, C.A Respondent by : Shri H.P.Meena– CIT-DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date of Hearing : 18/01/2022 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 27/01/2022 आदेश / O R D E R PER DR. A. L. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: Captioned appeal filed by the Revenue, pertaining to assessment year 2012- 13, is directed against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-2, Surat [‘CIT(A)’ for short], dated 14.02.2020, which in turn arises out of an order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’), dated 31.03.2015.

2.

At the outset, Shri Sapnesh R Sheth, Ld. Authorized Representative (AR) for the assessee begins by pointing out that in assessee’s case, ITAT Surat Bench vide its order dated 16.10.2018 passed in has deleted the quantum addition of Rs.4,07,25,000/- u/s 68 of the Act. Since the quantum addition has been deleted by this Tribunal, therefore penalty levied on the assessee based on the said quantum addition should be deleted.

3.

On the other hand, Ld. CIT-DR for the Revenue relied on the order of Assessing Officer.

A.Y. 12-13 Tirupati Energy Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

4.

We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. We note that Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the penalty observing as follows:-

After considering the findings of the assessing officer and submissions of the appellant, I find that the appellant has challenged the levy of penalty of Rs.1,32,13,226/- pertaining to addition of Rs.4,07,25,000/- made u/s 68 of the IT Act. In the penalty order, the AO noted that the said addition upheld by the CIT(A) clearly leads to the conclusion that income to this extent was concealed by the appellant as per Expl,. 1 to Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. On the other hand, the AR of the appellant has submitted a copy of ITAT, Surat order in dtd. 16.10.2018, of the appellant’s quantum appeal wherein the Hon'ble Bench deleted the additions of Rs.4,07,25,000/- u/s 68 of the Act. Considering this fact that the quantum addition was deleted, do not find any reason to sustain penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of Rs.1,32,13,226/- is hereby deleted. Ground Nos. 1 to 3 of the appeal are hereby allowed.

5.

When the foundation is removed then superstructure automatic falls. Since the quantum addition has been deleted by Tribunal, therefore, the penalty which is related to the quantum should also be deleted. Hence, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by Ld. CIT(A). That being so, we decline to interfere with the order passed by Ld. CIT(A), his order on this issue is hereby accepted and therefore, we dismiss the appeal filed by the Revenue.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →