NATASHA KHANNA,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-30(1), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2157/DEL/2022Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 July 2023AY 2011-124 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in deciding the penalty appeal before the quantum appeal. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) to decide the quantum appeal first, and then the penalty appeal.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal challenges the CIT(A)'s confirmation of a penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c). The penalty was imposed on additions made in an assessment order, but the CIT(A) decided the penalty appeal before the quantum appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) can confirm a penalty before deciding the underlying quantum additions. The procedural correctness of deciding penalty proceedings prior to the main assessment appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 147,Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI ‘E’ BENCH,

Before: SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, & MS. ASTHA CHANDRA

For Respondent: Shri M. K. Pandey, Sr. DR
Hearing: 06.07.2023Pronounced: 10.07.2023

PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:-

1.

This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order dated 08.07.2022 by the CIT(A)-30, New Delhi pertaining to Assessment Year 2011-12.

2.

The solitary grievance of the assessee is that the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act, for short] without deciding the quantum appeal first.

3.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee inspite of several notices. We decided to proceed exparte.

4.

As is evident from the above, the Assessing Officer levied penalty on the additions made in the assessment order dated 20.11.2015 framed u/s 147 /144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act, for short].

5.

Assessment was challenged before the ld. CIT(A).

6.

In the meantime, penalty proceedings were separately initiated.

The Assessing Officer subsequently levied penalty of Rs. 3,88,825/- which was also challenged before the first appellate authority.

Ironically, the first appellate authority decided the penalty first without deciding the fate of the quantum additions. Therefore, we are of the considered view that this appeal needs to be decided afresh after deciding the fate of the quantum addition. We, accordingly, restore the issue to the file of the ld. CIT(A).

7.

The ld. CIT(A) is directed to decide the appeal relating to levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act after deciding the appeal relating to quantum addition made in the assessment proceedings.

8.

Needless to mention, the ld. CIT(A) shall provide reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

9.

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

The order is pronounced in the open court on 10.07.2023.

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 →