SURYA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD-9(4), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3159/DEL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 August 2022AY 2008-093 pages

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

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that since the addition of unsecured loans, which formed the basis for the penalty, was already deleted by the ITAT in the quantum appeal, the penalty cannot survive. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal challenges a penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act. The penalty was based on an addition of unsecured loans under section 68.

What were the issues?

Whether a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be sustained when the underlying addition under Section 68 has been deleted by the ITAT.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

For Appellant: Shri Malav Goswami, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri R.S. Yadav, Sr. DR
Hearing: 22.08.2022

(PAN : AAACS3501M) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Malav Goswami, Advocate REVENUE BY : Shri R.S. Yadav, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 22.08.2022 Date of Order : 25.08.2022

ORDER

PER SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :

1.

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. CIT (A)-31, New Delhi dated 11.02.2019 pertaining to assessment year 2008-09.

2.

The issue raised is that ld. CIT (A) erred in sustaining the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) for an amount of Rs.5,75,094/-. of unsecured loan under section 68 of the Act amounting to Rs.9,45,799/- . The ld. counsel further submitted that in quantum appeal, ITAT in assessee’s own case in for AY 2008-09 vide order dated 04.04.2019 has deleted the said addition. In this view of the matter, ld. counsel of the assessee submitted that there is now no basis for levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the addition which has already been deleted by the ITAT.

4.

Ld. DR for the Revenue did not controvert the aforesaid submission.

5.

Accordingly, since the addition with reference to which penalty has been levied has been deleted by the ITAT, the penalty levied with reference to the said addition cannot survive, hence we set aside the orders of authorities below and delete the penalty.

6.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 25th day of August, 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 →