SHRIMATI SIMRAN PARKASH KAUR,BATALA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2, BATALA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 41/ASR/2020Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 August 2022AY 2009-103 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the quantum appeal had been set aside to the lower authorities for redetermination. Therefore, the penalty appeal was also set aside to the AO for fresh consideration after the quantum appeal is finalized.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was against a penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The penalty was based on a quantum assessment order passed ex-parte. The CIT(A) had upheld the AO's order.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be sustained when the underlying quantum assessment is subject to redetermination. The timing of penalty determination in relation to the final outcome of the quantum appeal.

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: 14.07.2022Pronounced: 11.08.2022

ORDER

Per Anikesh Banerjee, JM:

1.

The instant appeal was filed by the assessee against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Amritsar, [in brevity the CIT(A)] bearing appeal no. 10145/2017-18 date of order 31.10.2019, order passed u/s. 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in brevity the Act) for the Assessment year 2009-10. The impugned order was generated from the order of the ld. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Batala (in brevity the A.O) order passed u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act, date of order 27.04.2017.

2.

Brief facts of the case is that the penalty was levied amount of Rs.2,35,664/- in relation to the quantum assessment order passed by the ld. AO u/s 144, date of order 14.10.2016. The ld. AO determined the concealed income and levied penalty 100% of tax amount to Rs.2,35,664/-. Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) upheld the order of the ld. AO.

3.

Being aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before us.

4.

The ld. Counsel,first argued the quantum appeal before us bearing for the A.Y. 2009-10.

5.

The ld. Counsel further argued that the penalty should be determined after the final outcome of the quantum appeal.

6.

The ld. DR had not made any strong objection against the argument of the ld. AR, only he relied on the order of the revenue authorities.

7.

We heard the rival submission and considered the documents available in the record. The quantum appeal is determined bearing ITA 40/Asr/2020 and issues are set aside to the lower authorities. So, the quantum appeal is yet to be redetermined by the revenue authorities a fresh u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. We are setting aside the issue to the ld. AO for considering the issue afresh after considering the quantum appeal.

8.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 11 .08.2022

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 →