Case Law Details
Mihir Madhavrao Suryawanshi Vs ITO (ITAT Pune)
Impugned Section 271(c) penalty has arisen in consequence to the lower authorities action disallowing the assessee’s section 54F deduction claim. And in assessee’s quantum appeal ITAT has already deleted the foregoing 54F disallowance and therefore, penalty in issue herein has no legs to stands as a necessary corollary.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT PUNE
This assessee’s appeal for AY 2013-14 arises against the CIT(A)-1, Pune’s order dated 27-11-2019 passed in case No. PN/CIT(A)-1/ITO, WD11(2)/PN/47/2017-18 involving proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in short „the Act’.
Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
2. It emerges at the outset that the assessee has sought to reverse both the learned lower authorities action invoking section 271(1)(c) of the Act thereby imposing penalty of Rs.13,66,999/- in the assessing authority’s order dated 18.05.2017 as affirmed in the CIT(A)’s detailed discussion in issue.
3. Both the learned Representatives are very much in agreement during the course of hearing that the impugned penalty has arisen in consequence to the lower authorities action disallowing the assessee’s section 54F deduction claim of Rs.66,35,931/-. And that this tribunal’s co-ordinate bench’s order dated 16.12.2019 in assessee’s quantum appeal ITA No.313/PUN/2017 has already deleted the foregoing 54F disallowance and therefore, we conclude that the penalty in issue herein has no legs to stands as a necessary corollary. Ordered accordingly. The assessee succeeds in his instant sole substantive ground.
4. This assessee’s appeal is allowed in above terms.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 6th June, 2022.
