ACIT CIRCLE - 18(2), NEW DELHI vs. NKC PROJECTS (P) LTD., NEW DELHI
In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that since the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) had been deleted by the Tribunal in the quantum appeal, the penalty imposed based on that disallowance could not survive. Therefore, the deletion of penalty by the CIT(A) was upheld.
What were the facts?
The Revenue appealed against the deletion of penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) for the assessment year 2012-13. The penalty was based on a disallowance made under Section 40(a)(ia) for alleged non-deduction of TDS.
What were the issues?
Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be sustained when the addition forming the basis of the penalty has been deleted.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘E’ NEW DELHI
ORDER PER SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This is an appeal by the Revenue against order dated 02.04.2019 of learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-6, Delhi deleting penalty imposed of Rs.51,31,030 under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2012-13.
At the outset, learned counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that the addition based on which the Assessing Officer imposed penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, in the meanwhile, has been deleted by the Tribunal while deciding the quantum appeal of the assessee. In this regard, learned counsel placed on record a copy of order dated 09.05.2022 passed by the Tribunal in ITA No.2353/Del/2019. The Learned Departmental Representative fairly agreed with the aforesaid submission of the assessee.
Having considered rival submissions, we find, while completing the assessment, the Assessing Officer disallowed an amount of Rs.1,58,14,533 under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act for alleged non- deduction of tax at source. Based on the foresaid disallowance, penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act was initiated and ultimately an order was passed imposing penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. However, while deciding the quantum appeal of the assessee, in the order referred to above, the Tribunal has deleted the entire disallowance made under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Thus, when the disallowance is no more in existence, as a natural corollary, penalty imposed on such non-existent disallowance cannot survive.
In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any reason to interfere with the decision of learned Commissioner (Appeals) in deleting the penalty. Grounds are dismissed.
In the result, the appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 30thNovember, 2022.
More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
- Shalin Jayantbhai Desai, Vadodara vs ACIT, Circle-4(2), Vadodara Present…ITA 2569/AHD/2026[2010-11]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2010-11
- Neo Structo Construction P. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs The Pr. CIT- 3, AhmedabadITA 1216/AHD/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2370/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2369/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Sukant Kumar vs. Union Of INDIA And 6 OthersAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S New Sana Brick Field vs. Union Of INDIA And 4 OthersAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Shivam Tiles House vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- Vinay Singh vs. Union Of INDIAAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Aaradhyam Infrabuilders PVT LTD vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026