KANIKA CHAWLA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 45(1), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6685/DEL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 November 2022AY 2004-053 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal decided to set aside the appeal to the AO, directing the AO to decide the levy of penalty after adjudicating the quantum addition. This was done because the quantum addition itself was restored to the AO's files.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal concerned a penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The quantum addition, which formed the basis for the penalty, had been remitted back to the Assessing Officer (AO) by the Tribunal.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) could be sustained when the underlying quantum addition was still pending adjudication before the AO. The Tribunal considered the pendency of the quantum addition as a ground for remitting the penalty issue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘C’, NEW DELHI

Before: SH. N.K. BILLAIYA & SH. KUL BHARAT

Hearing: 23/11/2022Pronounced: 23/11/2022

This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the CIT(A)-15, Delhi dated 31.08.2018 pertaining to A.Y.2004-05.

2.

The sum and substance of the grievance of the assessee is that the CIT(A) erred in upholding the levy of penalty of Rs.3294113/- levied u/s. 271 (1) (c) of the Act by the AO.

3.

Briefly stated the facts of the case are that vide order dated 29.12.2008 assessment was framed u/s. 143 (3) of the Act at an income of Rs. 100901000/-. The assessment was challenged before the CIT(A) and vide order 17.12.2010 the CIT(A) upheld the assessment order.

4.

The order of the CIT(A) was challenged before this Tribunal and the Tribunal vide order dated 28.09.2012 in remanded the matter to the AO.

5.

Vide order dated 26.03.2014 once again the AO made the addition and once again the assessment was challenged before the CIT(A) and the CIT(A) upheld the assessment order.

6.

The order of the CIT(A) was challenged before this Tribunal and at the same time pending the appellate order the AO levied penalty u/s. 271 (1) (c) of the Act which was upheld by the CIT(A).

7.

In the quantum addition this Tribunal in vide order dated 11.10.2019 has remitted the matter back to the files of the AO.

8.

Considering the aforementioned factual matrix since the quantum addition has been restored to the files of the AO we deem it fit to set aside this appeal to the files of the AO. The AO is directed to decide the levy of penalty u/s. 271 (1) (c) of the Act after deciding the quantum addition.

9.

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose.

10.

Decision announced in the open court on 23.11.2022.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →