SHRI KIRANJIT SINGH,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-4 (3), AMRITSAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 216/ASR/2023Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar31 August 2023AY 2010-113 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the penalty appeal should also be restored back to the CIT(A) to be adjudicated along with the quantum appeal. The CIT(A) was directed to pass a detailed, reasoned, and speaking order after granting an adequate opportunity of being heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the penalty confirmed by the CIT(A). The assessee's quantum appeal for the same assessment year was previously restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty appeal should be adjudicated separately or along with the quantum appeal, especially when the quantum appeal has been restored for fresh adjudication.

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, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR

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

For Respondent: Smt. Ratinder Kaur, Sr. DR
Hearing: 29.08.2023Pronounced: 31.08.2023

The captioned appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 30.05.2023 for Assessment Year: 2010-2011 wherein he has challenged

Kiranjit Singh v. ITO confirmation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is illegal, arbitrary, bad in law and contrary to the facts of the case.

2.

At the outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the quantum appeal in the assessee’s own case in for AY: 2010-11 vide order dated 22.06.2023 has been restored back to the ld. CIT(A) by Tribunal for fresh adjudication on merits in accordance with law with the direction to the CIT(A) to pass a detailed, reasoned and speaking order after making such enquiry and verification as he may deem fit and after granting proper and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee in accordance with the principles of natural justice. He, further prayed that the matter of penalty may also be sent back to the ld. CIT(A) to be decided along with the quantum appeal.

3.

The ld. DR for the department has no objection to the request of the assessee.

4.

Having heard both the sides and perusal of record and the order of the Tribunal in quantum appeal. It is noted that the assessee’s matter in quantum appeal has been restored back to the ld. CIT(A) by the Tribunal vide order dated 22.06.2023 in as above (APB pg. 7 to 16). Since the quantum appeal is sent back to the ld. CIT(A) to pass a Kiranjit Singh v. ITO speaking order on merits of the case after granting sufficient and adequate opportunity of being heard to the appellant assessee. We hold that the penalty matter would also go back to the ld. CIT(A) to be adjudicated along with the quantum appeal. In view of the matter, we consider it deem fit to restore back the appeal of the assessee on the penalty matter to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate as per law along with the quantum appeal after granting adequate opportunity of being heard. Accordingly, the matter is restored back to the ld. CIT(A).

5.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the open court on 31.08.2023

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 →