SHRIMATI SIMRAN PARKASH KAUR, BATALA V. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2, BATALA

ITA 41/ASR/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 106 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8444 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 6 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-08-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 19-01-2020
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Set aside
• 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. 41/ASR/2020 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Smt. Simran Parkash Kaur W/O. Sh. Gurdial Singh, Vill. Bhagowal Pati Khasa Tehsil Batala [PAN: AHMPK0676R] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -2, Batala (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Vinamar Gupta, CA Respondent by: Sh. S. M. Surenderanath, Sr DR Date of Hearing: 14.07.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 11.08.2022 ORDER Per Anikesh Banerjee, JM: The instant appeal was filed by the assessee against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Amritsar, [in brevity the CIT(A)] bearing appeal no. 10145/2017-18 date of order 31.10.2019, order passed u/s. 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in brevity the Act) for the Assessment year 2009-10. The impugned order was generated from the order of the ld. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Batala (in brevity the A.O) order passed u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act, date of order 27.04.2017. I.T.A. No. 41/ASR/2020 2 2. Brief facts of the case is that the penalty was levied amount of Rs.2,35,664/- in relation to the quantum assessment order passed by the ld. AO u/s 144, date of order 14.10.2016. The ld. AO determined the concealed income and levied penalty 100% of tax amount to Rs.2,35,664/-. Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) upheld the order of the ld. AO. 3. Being aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before us. 4. The ld. Counsel,first argued the quantum appeal before us bearing ITA No.40/Asr/2020 for the A.Y. 2009-10. 5. The ld. Counsel further argued that the penalty should be determined after the final outcome of the quantum appeal. 6. The ld. DR had not made any strong objection against the argument of the ld. AR, only he relied on the order of the revenue authorities. 7. We heard the rival submission and considered the documents available in the record. The quantum appeal is determined bearing ITA 40/Asr/2020 and issues are set aside to the lower authorities. So, the quantum appeal is yet to be redetermined by the revenue authorities a fresh u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. We are I.T.A. No. 41/ASR/2020 3 setting aside the issue to the ld. AO for considering the issue afresh after considering the quantum appeal. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 11 .08.2022 Sd/- Sd/- (Dr. M. L. Meena) (Anikesh Banerjee) Accountant Member Judicial Member *Akv* Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Appellant: (2) The Respondent: (3) The CIT(A), (4) The CIT concerned (5) The Sr. DR, I.T.A.T (6) The Guard File True Copy By Order