Case Number: ITA 677/DEL/2019
Appellant: Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank, SHGB House, Plot No.1, Sector-3, Rohtak, Haryana
Respondent: Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Rohtak Circle, Rohtak
Assessment Year: 2012-13
Result: Appeal Allowed
Case Filed On: 2019-01-31
Order Type: Final Tribunal Order
Date of Order: 2022-01-24
Pronounced On: 2022-01-24
Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank, the appellant, filed this appeal against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Rohtak, dated 30.11.2018, relating to the assessment year 2012-13. The primary issue in this case was the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, amounting to Rs.20,39,000/- towards provision for fraud cases.
The appellant contested the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act on the following grounds:
The case was heard by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi Bench ‘G’, New Delhi, with Shri R.K. Panda, Accountant Member, and Shri N.K. Choudhry, Judicial Member, presiding. The appellant was represented by Shri Vivek Gupta, Advocate, while the respondent was represented by Smt. Parmita Biswas, CIT, DR.
The appellant’s counsel presented a copy of the tribunal’s order in the appellant’s own case in the quantum appeal (ITA No. 1073/Del/2016) for the assessment year 2012-13, dated 28th August 2020, where the tribunal had quashed the assessment. Based on this, the appellant argued that the penalty under section 271(1)(c) could not survive.
The Departmental Representative (DR) conceded that the tribunal had indeed quashed the assessment in the earlier order.
After hearing both sides, the ITAT found that the tribunal had previously quashed the assessment in the appellant’s own case for the same assessment year. Therefore, the penalty under section 271(1)(c) could not be sustained. The ITAT allowed the appeal, nullifying the penalty.
In conclusion, the ITAT allowed the appeal filed by Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank. The tribunal upheld that the penalty under section 271(1)(c) did not survive due to the quashing of the assessment in the appellant’s own case for the same assessment year. This case underscores the importance of consistent legal outcomes and the impact of prior rulings on subsequent proceedings.
Source: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Benches ‘G’, New Delhi
Disclaimer: This article provides an overview of the case and is not a substitute for professional legal advice. For detailed information, readers are encouraged to refer to the official case documents and consult with a qualified legal professional.
Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank vs ACIT, Rohtak Circle, Rohtak: Assessment Year 2012-13
Manage the increasing number of hearings effortlessly by leveraging the legal AI revolution We are India's Leading revolutionary AI-powered legal platform where you can get enough insights into top cases and judgements.
Research Platform