ACIT CIRCLE-2(2), NEW DELHI vs. ALCATEL LUCENT MANAGED SOLUTIONS INDIA PVT LTD, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1440/DEL/2020Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 October 2022AY 2012-133 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that since the addition made by the AO, which formed the basis for the penalty, was deleted in the quantum appeal, the penalty order could not sustain. Therefore, the penalty was set aside.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer (AO) levied a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) on the assessee for a bad debt claim. The assessee appealed this penalty to the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be sustained when the underlying addition has been deleted in quantum appeal. The nature of the bad debt claim as a colorable device was also questioned.

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: ‘A’ NEW DELHI

Before: DR. B. R. R. KUMAR & SH. YOGESH KUMAR U.S.

For Appellant: Adv & Sh
Hearing: 17.10.2022Pronounced: 20.10.2022

ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JM

The assessee has preferred the present appeal challenging the order dated 31/01/2020 passed by the Ld.CIT(A)-16, Mumbai on the following grounds:-

“1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting penalty levied by the AO u/s 271(l)(c) of the Act amounting to Rs. 9,56,85,812/- by holding in its order that Ld. AO has not mentioned that assessee has filed improper details or wrong details, which is contrary to the facts highlighted by the AO in penalty order.

ACIT Vs. Alcatel Lucent Managed Solutions

2.

Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the peculiar nature of facts of the case that penalty was levied by the AO on the disallowance made on account of bed debt claim of assessee, which was found to be nothing but same transactions and a methodlolgy of colorable device so as to reduce taxable income.”

2. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that the addition made in the assessment order by the Ld. A.O. which has been confirmed by the Ld.CIT(A) for the year under consideration has been deleted in the quantum appeal filed by the assessee in vide order dated 17/12/2019, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has produced the copy of the same. Since the quantum appeal filed by the assessee has been allowed by deleting the addition, the penalty order and the order passed by the Ld.CIT (A) by confirming the penalty order will not sustain. Therefore, the impugned order passed by Ld.CIT (A) is set aside by deleting the penalty imposed on the assessee.

3.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.

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 →