Aglodiya Diamonds, Palanpur vs Assessee
- CitationITA No.2413/Ahd/2013
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where the quantum disallowance underlying a penalty under section 271(1)(c) has been deleted in quantum proceedings, the penalty founded on that disallowance cannot survive and must be deleted.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
सुनवाई क तार ख/Date o f Hearing : 2 2/06/2015 घोषणा क तार ख /Date o f Prono unceme nt: 2 5/06 /20 15
आदेश /O R D E R
PER S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
This assessee's appeal for A.Y.2006-07, arises from order of CIT(A)-I, Ahmedabad, dated 18.09.2013 passed in case no.CIT(A)- I/Wd.1-PLN/162/2013-14, upholding penalty of Rs.1,70,700/- imposed by the Assessing Officer, in proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act,1961, in short 'the Act'.
2. Fact of the case are in a narrow compass. The assessee-firm is engaged in the business of doing labour work of diamonds. The Assessing Officer framed a regular assessment in its case on 22.12.2008 disallowing a sum of Rs.5,07,286/- out of labour charges. He initiated penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act ITA No.2413/Ahd/2013 M/s. Aglodia Diamonds For A.Y. 2006-07 -2-
alleging concealment and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The CIT(A) upheld the said disallowance in his order dated 26.11.2010. The assessee preferred an appeal before the tribunal. In the meantime, the Assessing Officer passed penalty order dated 12.3.2012 imposing the impugned penalty of Rs.1,70,700/- pertaining to the aforesaid disallowance after holding it as a case of furnishing of inaccurate particulars in claiming excess expenses at the assessee's behest. The CIT(A) has also affirmed that impugned penalty.
3. We have heard both sides and perused the case file. The case file reveals that the tribunal in ITA 867/Ahd/2011 decided on 9.1.2015 has deleted the disallowance in question itself in quantum proceedings. The Revenue fails to point out any exception to these facts. We observe in these circumstances that the impugned penalty has no legs to stand in view of the tribunal's order in quantum proceedings. The assessee's sole substantive ground is accordingly accepted. The impugned penalty of Rs.1,70,700/- stands deleted.
4. The assessee's appeal is allowed.
Order pronounced in the Court on this day, the 25th June, 2015 at Ahmedabad.
Sd/- Sd/- (ANIL CHATURVEDI) (S.S. GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 25/06/2015 Prabhat Kr. Kesarwani, Sr. P.S. आदेश क त ल प अ े षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : ITA No.2413/Ahd/2013 M/s. Aglodia Diamonds For A.Y. 2006-07 -3-
1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant 2. यथ / The Respondent. 3. संबं धत आयकर आयु त / Concerned CIT
4. आयकर आयु त(अपील) / The CIT(A)-III, Ahmedabad
5. वभागीय त न ध, आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad
6. गाड फाईल / Guard file.
आदेशानुस ार / BY ORDER,
उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.Registrar) आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free