SHRI RAHUL BHAT,JAMMU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1 (2), JAMMU

PDF · subscribers
ITA 522/ASR/2018Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar19 October 2022AY 2005-063 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that since the underlying assessment order was set aside, the penalty order based on it is non-est. Therefore, the penalty levied is quashed.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal concerns a penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) for the assessment year 2005-06. The penalty was based on an assessment order that was later set aside by the ITAT for further adjudication.

What were the issues?

Whether a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be sustained when the assessment order on which it is based has been set aside. The validity of the penalty in light of the set-aside assessment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR.

Before: DR. M. L. MEENA & SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE

Hearing: 13.10.2022Pronounced: 19.10.2022

ORDER Per:Anikesh Banerjee, JM:

The instant appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of the ld.

Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal), Jammu, [in brevity the CIT(A)] bearing appeal No.252/2015-16, date of order 17.08.2018, the order passed u/s 250 (6) of the Income Tax Act 1961, [in brevity the Act] for A.Y. 2005-06.The impugned order was emanated from the order of the ld. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(2), Jammu, (in brevity the AO) order passed u/s 271 (1) (c) of the Act, date of order 13.08.2015.

2.

The brief fact of the case is that the assessment was completed u/s 143(3) and against the order of assessment appeal was filed. The assessee challenged the quantum appeal before the ITAT, Amritsar Bench, bearing date of order 17.05.2019. The ITAT, Amritsar Benchhad taken the issue and passed the order.As per the order of ITAT, the disputed amount of Rs.9 lac for the assessment year 2005-06 was set aside to the ld. AO for further adjudication. The penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was levied on the basis of assessment order passed u/s 143(3). The penalty order was challenged before the appellate authority and the appellate authority had upheld the order ld.AO.

3.

Being aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before us.

4.

During appeal proceeding none was present on behalf of the assessee. The matter is taken up with the consent of the ld. Sr. DR for adjudication.

5.

We heard the submission of the ld. Sr. DR and thoughtfully considered the order of the ITAT, Amritsar Bench and orders of both the revenue authorities. The only dispute is related to cash payment for purchase of property related to Rs.9 lac for the assessment year under appeal. Considering the assessment order the penalty was upheld by the ld. CIT(A). But the ITAT, Amritsar Bench bearing date of order 17.05.2019 hasset aside the issue before the ld. AO. Accordingly, the quantum order of assessment is not sustained. In this point of time the penalty order passed by the ld. AO on basis the quantum order is non-est. 5.1 The ld. Sr. DR has only relied on the order of both the revenue authorities. 5.2. Accordingly, the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) passed by the ld. AO amount of Rs.3,03,597/- is quashed.

6.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing is allowed.

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 →