Gagandeep Hotel & Restaurant Private Limited, Kanpur V. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax- 6, Kanpur

ITA 716/LKW/2018

AI Insights

The case involves M/s Gagandeep Hotel & Restaurant Pvt. Ltd., which appealed against the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 2012-13. The penalty was initially set at Rs. 33,04,600 for alleged non-compliance and procedural errors during the assessment proceedings. The CIT(A) had deleted this penalty in a previous ruling, which the appellant sought to contest. However, during the Tribunal hearing, it was acknowledged by both the appellant and the respondent that the penalty had already been removed, rendering the appeal filed with the Tribunal unnecessary and infructuous.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 113274 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 4 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-05-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 09-05-2023
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 26-12-2018
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: HARISH GIDWANI
• Section: 271(1)(c)

Judgement Text

I.T.A. No.716/Lkw/2018 Assessment year:2012-13 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH ‘B’, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.716/Lkw/2018 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s Gagandeep Hotel & Restaurant Pvt. Ltd., (Formerly Gagandeep Construction Company Pvt. Ltd. 6316, The Mall, Kanpur. PAN:AABCG8623K Vs. Dy.C.I.T.-6, Kanpur. (Appellant) (Respondent) O R D E R PER ANADEE NATH MISSHRA:A.M. (A) Appeal vide I.T.A. No.716/Lkw/2018 has been filed by the assessee for assessment year 2012-13 against impugned appellate order dated 10/09/2018 of learned CIT(A). The grounds of appeal are as under: “1. That the CIT Appeal has erred in not accepting that the penalty order is without jurisdiction and is bad in law. Appellants by Shri Jitendra Kumar Yadav, Advocate Respondent by Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Date of hearing 10/05/2023 Date of pronouncement 11/05/2023 I.T.A. No.716/Lkw/2018 Assessment year:2012-13 2 2. That the CIT Appeal has erred in not accepting that the Ld. Assessing Officer has fixed the compliance for hearing on 14/03/2018 as per the notice dated 09/03/2018 and has alleged in the penalty order that nobody appeared on the date fixed for hearing that as per the show cause notice on 14/03/2018, when the notice has only been received on 21/03/2018. 3. That the CIT Appeal has erred in not accepting that the illegal impugned notice goes to the root of the penalty proceedings and vitiates the proceedings, which results in making the penalty order void ab initio which is liable to be quashed. 4. That the CIT Appeal has erred in not accepting that the Ld. AO has passed the penalty order on 27/03/2013, without giving cognizance to the reply on the show cause notice filed on 26 th March 2018 by the humble appellant and has passed the order Ex Parte on considering the date of hearing on 14 tn March 2018, when even no notice in that respect was received by the humble appellant hence the penalty order is passed without giving opportunity of hearing, which is mandatory requirement before passing the penalty order, hence that goes to the root of the proceedings and makes the penalty order void ab initio which is liable to be quashed. 5. That the CIT Appeal has erred in not accepting that the order appealed against is contrary to facts, law and principles of natural justice.” (B) The subject matter of this appeal is penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“IT Act” for short) amounting to Rs.33,04,600/-. Vide order dated 10/09/2018 of appeal No.CIT(A)-II/1001/18-19/142, the learned CIT(A) deleted the aforesaid penalty amounting to Rs.33,04,600/-. The present appeal has been filed by the assessee in respect of the aforesaid appellate order dated 10/09/2018 of learned CIT(A). At the time of hearing before us, the assessee was represented by Shri Jitendra Kumar Yadav, Advocate and Revenue was I.T.A. No.716/Lkw/2018 Assessment year:2012-13 3 represented by Shri Harish Gidwani, Sr. D.R. Representatives of both sides, the assessee and Revenue expressed the view that this appeal, filed by the assessee, in Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is infructuous because the learned CIT(A) has already deleted the aforesaid penalty amounting to Rs.33,04,600/-. In view of the foregoing, and as representatives of both sides are in agreement with this, we hold that this appeal filed by the assessee is infructuous. Accordingly, this appeal of the assessee is dismissed being infructuous. (C) In the result, the appeal stands dismissed. (Order pronounced in the open court on 11/05/2023) Sd/. Sd/. (SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA) (ANADEE NATH MISSHRA) Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated:11/05/2023 *Singh Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. Concerned CIT 4. D.R., I.T.A.T., 5. CIT(A) Assistant Registrar