Loading judgment…
Facts
The Revenue filed appeals against the CIT(A) orders deleting penalties levied under Section 271(1)(c) for assessment years 2012-13 to 2014-15. The appeals were disposed of in the absence of the assessee as no one attended the hearing.
Held
The Tribunal held that since the quantum appeals against additions were already dismissed by a Co-ordinate Bench, there was no concealed income on which penalty could be levied. Therefore, the deletion of penalty by the Ld. CIT(A) was upheld.
Key Issues
Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be sustained when the underlying additions giving rise to the penalty have already been deleted by a higher authority or co-ordinate bench.
Sections Cited
271(1)(c), 250, 292C
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI “B” BENCH: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “B” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER to 2132/Del/2024 [Assessment Years : 2012-13 to 2014-15] DCIT, vs Pacific Mining Products Central Circle-II, Pvt.Ltd., H.No.23A, Office Noida No.201, Kamal Tower, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092. PAN-AADCP6632R APPELLANT RESPONDENT Revenue by Ms. Pooja Swaroop, CIT DR Assessee by None Date of Hearing 31.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement 31.07.2025 ORDER PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM :
The captioned appeals are filed by the Revenue against the order, all dated 05.03.2024 by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A)-3, Noida [“Ld.CIT(A)”] in Appeal No. CIT(A), Kanpur-4/10004, 10005, 10006, 10009, 10013, 10015 & 10020/2018-19 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] arising from the assessment order, all dated 18.08.2017 passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act pertaining to assessment year 2012-13 to 2014-15 respectively.
At the time of hearing, no one attended the proceedings on behalf of the assessee. Therefore, all captioned appeals filed by the Revenue are disposed off in the absence of the assessee.
All captioned appeals filed by the Revenue are against the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) however, the appeals of the Revenue against the quantum additions have already been decided by the Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal in to 1986/Del/2024 [AYs 2012-13 to 2015-16] in assessee’s own case vide order dated 27.12.2024 wherein the same were dismissed thus, there remained no concealed income on which penalty could be levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The relevant paras of decision of the order of Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the captioned assessment years vide order dated 27.12.2024 is reproduced as under:-
“We have heard the Learned DR and perused the material available on the record. Learned DR has stated that the Ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred to delete the additions without considering that the substantive addition made by the Ld. CIT(Appeals) in the hand of Shri Ashish Garg has not attain the finality . He supported the stand of the Assessing Officer. Ld. CIT(Appeals) further held that the provisions of Section 292C of the Act as under: “The provisions of Section 292C make it very clear that the seized documents belong to the assessee and the contents of the documents are true. From the above discussion and evidences available on record, it is clear that Sh. Ashish Garg is directly related to the group companies and contentions of the appellant are patently false. But the addition on the same issue has been made on a substantive basis in the hands of Sh. Ashish Garg and the same has been confirmed in the order of CIT(A)-4, Kanpur in Appeal No. CIT(A)- IV/KNP/10477/2017-18 for AY 2015- 16 dated 19.04.2022 as the same money cannot be taxed again in the hands of the assessee. As the same money cannot be taxed twice, the addition considered as protective by the AO on account of the entries mentioned in the seized diary is deleted and the ground of appeal
is allowed for statistical purposes”.
13. If, we go through the order of the Learned CIT(A) and examine the whole issue, it will reveal that the addition on the same issue has been made on substantive basis in the hands of Shri Ashish Garg and the same has been confirmed by the Learned First Appellate Authority. The same money cannot be taxed again in the hands of the assessee. Learned Assessing Officer has made the addition on protective basis while the addition has been made in the Page | 2 hands of Ashish Garg director of the assessee company. The money cannot be taxed twice. The Learned CIT(A) has rightly allowed the appeals of the assessee. Accordingly, we do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the Learned CIT(A).
Keeping in view the decision taken by the Ld. CIT(Appeals) in the right direction, the appeals of the Revenue are liable to be dismissed. Since, we have dismissed the appeal of the Revenue in the leading appeal i.e. therefore, remaining appeals of the Revenue are also dismissed.”
4. Ld.CIT(A) by observing that in the quantum appeals for captioned assessment years, relief has been allowed and therefore, the penalty was deleted.
Before us, in Ground of appeal No.1, the Revenue contended that the order of Ld.CIT(A) in quantum proceedings is challenged before the Tribunal therefore, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income should be restored.
6. Heard the contention of Ld.CIT DR and perused the material available on record. As observed above, since the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal vide its order dated 27.12.2024 has already dismissed the appeals of the Revenue for all the three years involved in present appeals, therefore, we find no error in the order of Ld.CIT(A) in deleting the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Accordingly, the order is hereby upheld.
In the result, all captioned appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos. 7. 2130 to 2132/Del/2024 [Assessment Years 2012-13 to 2014-15] are dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 31.07.2025.