Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Tirupati V. Prakash Kumar Desai, Tirupati

ITA 755/Hyd/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6888 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-12-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB-A
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 06-12-2020
• Result in Favour of: Matter Remanded
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: A. SHANTI KUMAR
• Section: 271(1)(c)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ A ‘ Bench, Hyderabad (Through Video Conferencing) Before Shri A. Mohan Alankamony, Accountant Member AND Shri S.S. Godara, Judicial Member ITA No.755/Hyd/2020 Assessment Year: 2011-12 ACIT, Central Circle, Tirupati. Vs. Sri Prakash Kumar Desai, Mysore, Karnataka. PAN : ABOPD7014J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Sri A. Shanti Kumar Revenue by : Sri T. Sunil Goutam Date of hearing: 06/12/2021 Date of pronouncement: 07/12/2021 O R D E R Per S. S. Godara, J.M. This assessee’s appeal for A.Y 2011-12 arises from the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 3, Visakhapatnam’s order dated 07.10.2020 in case No.21/2019-20/CIT(A)-3/VSP/2020-21 involving proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, “the Act”). Heard both the parties. Case file perused. ITA No.755/Hyd/2020 2 2. Coming to the Revenue’s sole substantive grievance that the CTI(A) has erred in law and on facts in reversing the Assessing Officer’s action imposing section 271(1)(c) penalty of Rs.1,51,45,071/- by placing reliance on hon’ble jurisdictional high court’s decision in PCIT Vs. Baisetty Revathi (2017) 398 ITR 88 (AP HC) that it is very much imperative for the Assessing Officer to strike off the specific limb as to whether the concerned assessee had concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such as income, we find with the able assistance of both the parties and from perusal of the corresponding assessment order dated 19.03.2013 that the assessment in question involving the addition(s) in issue; had been made on “protective” base only. 3. We sought to know the final status of the corresponding substantive assessment before adverting to the impugned issue of correctness of section 271(1)(c) penalty on merits. Both the parties fail to indicate the necessary factual position in this regard. 4. Faced with this situation, we prima facie of the opinion that the impugned penalty pertaining to various protective additions has no leg to stand as of now till the finality of the substantive assessment is ascertained. We accordingly restore the Revenue’s instant substantive grounds back to the Assessing Officer to examine the foregoing clinching issue afresh. It is made clear that the assessee shall be very much at liberty to raise all ITA No.755/Hyd/2020 3 factual as well as legal pleas in consequential proceedings as per law. 5. This Revenue’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 7 th December, 2021. Sd/- Sd/- (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (S.S. GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER Hyderabad, dated 7 th December, 2021. TYNM/sps Copy to: S.No Addresses 1 Sri Prakash Kumar Desai, H.No.B-1, HIG, Kalpataru, 6 th Main Road, K-Block, Ramakrishna Nagar, Mysore – 570022, Karnataka. 2 The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Tirupati. 3 Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 3, Visakhapatnam. 4 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Visakhapatnam. 5 DR, ITAT Hyderabad Benches 6 Guard File By Order