INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4 (3), JALANDHAR V. SMT. GURJEET KAUR W/O SH. KULWANT SINGH, JALANDHAR

ITA 124/ASR/2022

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 103 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8534 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-11-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 10-11-2022
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 08-06-2022
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 271(1)(c)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 124/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(3), Jalandhar Vs. Smt. Gurjeet Kaur W/o Sh. Kulwant Singh 1-Atwal House, Cantt Road, Jalandhar [PAN: AIKPK 9383L] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Surinder Mahajan, CA Respondent by : Sh. Girish Bali, CIT DR Date of Hearing: 11.11.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 15.11.2022 ORDER Per Dr. M. L. Meena, AM: The present appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order dated 12.04.2022 passed by the ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi in respect of Assessment Year 2017-18, challenging ITA No. 124 /Asr/2022 ITO v. Gurjeet Kaur 2 therein the deletion of penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. At the outset, the ld. CIT-DR for the department submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has not appreciated the merits of the case while deleting the penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Ta Act on the basis of ITAT Amritsar Bench order passed in the quantum proceedings thereby granting relief to the assessee. He contended that although the ITAT has granted relief to the assessee in the quantum appeal, however the department is considering the order of the tribunal to be challenged before the Hon’ble High Court as yet time is available to file the appeal before the Hon’ble High Court. Whether the Hon’ble High Court/partly restored the order of the Assessing Officer, no adjudication by the CIT(A) on merits against the penalty order would be available. He prayed that the appeal may be kept in abeyance till the decision of the Hon’ble High Court. 3. Per contra, the ld. counsel for the assessee supported the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (NFAC) in deleting the penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. He contended that since the addition made in the quantum proceedings has been deleted by the Hon’ble ITAT Amritsar Bench, and therefore, the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is also not maintainable and ITA No. 124 /Asr/2022 ITO v. Gurjeet Kaur 3 required to be deleted. For this purpose, he placed reliance on the following judgments: “(i) K.C Builders vs. ACIT, 265ITR 562 (ii) CIT vs. Bahri Brothers Pvt. Ltd. 167 ITR 0880(Pat) (iii) CIT vs. Bhagwan Ltd. 168 ITR 846 (Cat) (iv) CIT vs. Bengal Jute Mills Company Ltd. 174 ITR 402 (Cal) (v) CIT vs. Madanlal Sohanlal 176 ITR 189 (Cal) (vi) CIT vs. Bedi and Co. Pvt. Ltd. 183 ITR 59 (Kar) (vii) CIT vs. Roy Durlabhaji 211 ITR 470 (Raj)” 4. We have heard both the sides and perusal of the record. Admittedly, in this case the addition has been deleted in the quantum proceedings by the ITAT Amritsar Bench in ITA Nos. 627 & 628/Asr/2017 vide order dated 21.02.2022. The issue raised by the Revenue is that time for filing further appeal before the Hon’ble High Court was yet available and the Hon’ble High Court may restored/partly restore the order of the Assessing Officer and hence no adjudication by CIT(A) on merits against the penalty order would be available. In our view, the issue raised by the Revenue would not survive because the very addition farming the basis of penalty has been deleted by the coordinate bench. We, therefore, concur with the finding of the ld. CIT(A) who has rightly deleted the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. This view of ours gets support from the judgment of ITA No. 124 /Asr/2022 ITO v. Gurjeet Kaur 4 the ITAT Tribunal Bench in the case of ITO v. Deepa Restaurant & Bar Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 5424/Mum/2012. 5. In the above view, we find no merit the grounds raised by the department and hence CIT(A) order, deleting the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) is upheld. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 15.11.2022 Sd/- Sd/- (Anikesh Banerjee) (Dr. M. L. Meena) Judicial Member Accountant Member *GP/Sr/PS* Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Appellant: (2) The Respondent: (3) The CIT(Appeals) (4) The CIT concerned (5) The Sr. DR, I.T.A.T True Copy By Order