Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Thukral Regal Shoes, Chandigarh vs Department Of Income Tax

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal30 April 2015

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

The levy of penalty for concealment or inaccurate particulars is dependent on the existence of a surviving quantum addition; where the addition on which the penalty rests has been deleted in the quantum proceedings, no penalty can be sustained on that basis, and the penalty must fall with it.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNALCHANDIGARH BENCH 'A' CHANDIGARHBEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBERAND SHRI T.R.SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBERITA No. 773/CHD/2013Assessment Year: 2007-08

The ACI T, Vs M/s Thukral Regal Shoes, Circle 2 (1), SCO 88, Sector 17D, Chandigarh. Chandigarh.

PAN: AAAFT5204F &

CO 27/CHD/2013 In ITA No. 773/CHD/2013 Assessment Year: 2007-08

M/s Thukral Regal Shoes, Vs The ACI T, SCO 88, Sector 17D, Circle 2(1), Chandigarh. Chandigarh.

(Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee by : Shri Gurjit Singh Respondent by : Shri S.K.Mittal

Date of Hearing : 29.04.2015 Date of Pronouncement : 30.04.2015

O R D E R

PER BHAVNESH SAINI,JM

The departmental appeal and Cross Objection by assessee

are directed against the order of ld. CIT(Appeals), Chandigarh

dated 08.04.2013 for assessment year 2007-08.

2. The ld. CI T(Appeals) noted that penalty was imposed on

disallowance of the interest. The ld. CIT(Appeals) further noted

that quantum addition has been deleted by the Tribunal vide

order dated 27.04.2012 in I TA 650/CHD/2011. The ld. 2

CIT(Appeals), therefore, noted that since quantum addition has

been deleted, penalty is not leviable and accordingly, allowed the

appeal of the assessee.

3. We have heard ld. DR and the assessee in person. The

departmental appeal has no merit because once quantum

addition has been deleted by the Tribunal, nothing survives in

favour of the revenue for levy of penalty against the assessee.

4. The assessee in the Cross Objection prayed that appeal of

the department may be dismissed. It is also time barred. Since,

departmental appeal is dismissed, therefore, the Cross Objection

of the assessee stands infructuous and no further interference is

called for in the matter.

5. In view of the above discussion, the departmental appeal

and Cross Objection of the assessee are dismissed.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 30 t h April,2015.

Sd/- Sd/-

(T.R.SOOD) (BHAVNESH SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Dated: 30 t h April,2015. 'Poonam' Copy to:

The Appellant, The Respondent, The CI T(A), The CI T,DR

Assistant Registrar, I TAT Chandigarh

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