SIGNATURES BUILDERS PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ADDI. CIT RANGE-77, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5735/DEL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 August 2022AY 2017-185 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, following the decisions of its co-ordinate benches in similar cases, held that the penalty under Section 271C was not leviable. Consequently, the penalty was set aside.

What were the facts?

The assessee company was levied a penalty under Section 271C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for an amount of Rs. 6,62,100/-. This penalty was confirmed by the CIT(A). The assessee appealed this order to the ITAT.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the penalty levied under Section 271C of the Income Tax Act was justified in the given facts and circumstances.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

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

For Appellant: Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Advocate, CA and Sh. Utkarsa Kumar Gupta, Advocate

ORDER PER ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, AM (A) This appeal by Assessee is filed against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-31, New Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)”, for short], dated 13/05/2019 for Assessment Year 2017-18.

Grounds taken in this appeal are as under:

“(i) That the order of the Ld. A.O. as well as CIT(A) in unlawful, arbitrary and against the facts of the case.

Signatures Builders Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT

(ii) That the Ld. A.O. as well as CIT(A) was not justified in levying/confirming penalty of Rs.6,62,100/- U/s 271C of the I.T. Act, 1961.

(iii) That the assessee craves right to amend, delete, substitute any one or more of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.”

(B) In this case, order dated 11/01/2018 was passed by the Assessing Officer, levying penalty amounting to Rs.6,62,100/- u/s 271C of Income Tax Act (being 2% of the EDC amount paid to HUDA).

(B.1) Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal in the office of Ld. CIT(A). Vide impugned appellate order dated 13/05/2019, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the aforesaid penalty of Rs.6,62,100/-. Aggrieved again, the assessee has filed this present appeal in Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (“ITAT” for short) against the aforesaid impugned appellate order dated 13/05/2019 of the Ld. CIT(A). In the course of appellate proceedings in Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, a compilation of case laws containing copies of the following orders was filed from the assessee’s side.

Signatures Builders Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT

Sr. No. Particulars 1. BPTP Ltd. Vs. PCIT-(Central)-III, New Delhi [2020] 421 ITR 59 (DHC) 2. PCIT (Central)-III, New Delhi Vs. BPTP Ltd. [2021] 123 taxmann.com 394 (SC) 3. M/s Tulip Infratech Private Limited Vs. ACIT [ITA No. 6734/DEL/2019, A.Y. 2014-15] [ITA No. 6735/DEL/2019, A.Y. 2016-17] 4. Spaze Tower Pvt. Ltd. Vs. JCIT [ITA No. 5842/DEL/2019] 5. M/s Perfect Constech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Addl. CIT [ITA No. 6907/DEL/2019] 6. M/s Santure Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT [ITA No. 6844/DEL/2019] 7. Shiv Sai Infrastructure (P) Ltd. Vs. ACIT [ITA No. 5713/DEL/2019] 8. M/s Sarv Estate Pvt. Ltd. Vs. JCIT [ITA No.5337 & 5338/DEL/2019 (B.2) At the time of hearing before us, the representatives of both sides, the learend Counsel for the assessee as well as the learned Sr. DR for the Revenue were in agreement that the issue in dispute regarding levy of penalty u/s 271C of IT Act is squarely covered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue by aforesaid orders of Co-ordinate Benches of ITAT, Delhi in the aforesaid cases of M/s Tulip Infratech Private Limited Vs. ACIT (supra), Spaze Tower Pvt. Ltd. Vs. JCIT (supra), M/s Perfect Constech

Signatures Builders Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Addl. CIT (supra), M/s Santure Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT (supra), Shiv Sai Infrastructure (P) Ltd. Vs. ACIT (supra) and M/s Sarv Estate Pvt. Ltd. Vs. JCIT (supra) in which, in similar facts and circumstances, it was held that penalty u/s 271C was not leviable. The learned Counsel for the assessee drew our attention to the fact that one of us (the Judicial Member) is the co-author of the aforesaid order in the case of Spaze Tower Pvt. Ltd. vs. JCIT (supra).

Neither side has brought any distinguishing facts and circumstances or legal submissions for our consideration to persuade us to take a view different from the view taken by Co- ordinate Benches of ITAT, Delhi in the aforesaid orders passed in the cases of M/s Tulip Infratech Private Limited Vs. ACIT (supra), Spaze Tower Pvt. Ltd. Vs. JCIT (supra), M/s Perfect Constech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Addl. CIT (supra), M/s Santure Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT (supra), Shiv Sai Infrastructure (P) Ltd. Vs. ACIT (supra) and M/s Sarv Estate Pvt. Ltd. Vs. JCIT (supra).

(B.2.1) In view of the foregoing, and respectfully following the aforesaid orders passed by Co-ordinate Benches of ITAT, Delhi;

Signatures Builders Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT we set aside the issue in the present appeal also in favour of the assessee and against Revenue. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned appellate order dated 13/05/2019 of the Ld. CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty amounting to Rs.6,62,100/- levied u/s 271C of the IT Act.

(C) In the result, for statistical purposes, this appeal is allowed.

Order pronounced on 25/08/2022.

More judgments on Section 271C

All 782 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →