ACIT, CIRCLE-8(2), NEW DELHI vs. ECO RRB INFRA PVT. LTD., DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 495/DEL/2020Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 November 2022AY 2013-143 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the quantum addition was set aside and remanded to the AO for fresh assessment. Therefore, the penalty proceedings based on that addition would not sustain. The appeal challenging the deletion of the penalty was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s deletion of a penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c). The assessee argued that the quantum addition, on which the penalty was based, had been set aside by the Tribunal and remanded to the Assessing Officer for de-novo consideration.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty proceedings can survive when the underlying addition has been set aside and remanded for fresh assessment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘B’ NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA & SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S.

For Appellant: Shri S. Krishnan, Adv.; &, Shri V. Raja Kumar, Adv.;
For Respondent: Shri Rajendra Jha
Hearing: 07.11.2022Pronounced: 09.11.2022

PER YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JM

1.

This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order dated 29.11.2019 of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–3, New Delhi [hereinafter referred to CIT (Appeals)] for Assessment Year 2013-14.

2.

The Revenue has raised the following substantive ground of appeal:- “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in deleting the penalty of Rs.53,07,479/- levied by the AO u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.”

3.

The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that quantum proceedings, the addition made by the A.O which was confirmed by the CIT(A) for the year under consideration (2013-14) has been set aside by the Tribunal to the file of Assessing Officer for de-novo consideration in and other connected matters vide order dated 20/08/2020. Therefore, submitted that the present appeal filed by the revenue challenging the order of CIT (A) in deleting the penalty imposed by the A.O. does not survive.

4.

The Ld. DR has not disputed the said facts of remanding the issue in the quantum proceedings to the file of A.O. by the Tribunal for the year under consideration.

5.

We have perused the of the order of the Tribunal dated 28-02-2020 made in ITA No. 3509/Del/2019. The addition made for the year under consideration has been set aside and the issue has been remanded to the file of A.O. It is for the A.O. to initiate penalty proceedings if required in accordance with law after passing the fresh assessment order. Therefore the present Appeal filed by the Revenue challenging the order of the CIT (A) in deleting the Penalty by the A.O. will not sustain. With the above observations the appeal of the Revenue dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on : 09/11/2022.

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 →