ACIT CIRCLE-25(2), NEW DELHI vs. TV TODAY NETWORK LTD., NEW DELHI
In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The CIT(A) deleted the penalty, observing that the underlying addition on which the penalty was levied had already been deleted by the ITAT. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no reason to interfere as the Revenue did not demonstrate any fallacy in the CIT(A)'s findings.
What were the facts?
The assessee, TV Today Network Ltd., engaged in media business, filed its return for AY 2005-06. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed new look expenses of Rs. 2,40,84,750 and subsequently levied a penalty under Section 271(1)(c).
What were the issues?
Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can survive when the primary addition on which it was levied has been deleted.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘H’, NEW DELHI
Before: SH. ANIL CHATURVEDI & SH. ANUBHAV SHARMA
This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 11.10.2019 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)—31, New Delhi relating to Assessment Year 2005-06.
Brief facts of the case as culled out from the material on record are as under:-
Assessee is a company which is stated to be engaged in the business of Media – 24 Hours TV News Channels – “Aaj Tak” and “Headlines Today”. Assessee filed its return of income for A.Y. 2005-06 on 31.10.2005 declaring an income of Rs. 21,45,46,410/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and thereafter notices 143(2) and 142(1) were issued and duly served on the assessee. Thereafter, assessment was framed u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 27.12.2007 and the total taxable income was determined at Rs.25,17,86,456/- and Short Term Capital Gain of Rs.1,18,649/- by inter alia disallowing Rs.2,40,84,750/-, being new look expenses.
On the aforesaid addition of Rs.2,40,84,750/-, AO vide penalty order passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 31.03.2017 levied penalty of Rs.81,06,927/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.
Aggrieved by the penalty order of AO, assessee carried the matter before CIT(A) who vide order dated 11.10.2019 in Appeal Nos.577/19-20/316/18-19 & 578/19-20/317/18-19 deleted the penalty by observing as under: “4.1 All the grounds of appeal raised in A.Y. 2005-06 are pertaining to imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) at Rs.81,06,927/- on disallowance of New Look expenses of Rs.2,40,84,750/-. I find that the Hon’ble ITAT vide paras 17 to 25 of the above mentioned order dated 16.08.2019 has deleted the disallowance of expenditure of rs.2,40,484,750/- by treating the same as revenue expenditure and hence no basis now survives for imposition of penalty. Accordingly, the penalty imposed in A.Y. 2005-06 is deleted. Hence appellant succeeds on this account.”
Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), Revenue is now in appeal and has raised the following grounds: 1. “On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty of Rs.81,06,927/- imposed in A.Y. 2005-06 on account of the disallowance of expenditure of Rs.2,40,84,750/- by treating it as revenue. 2. The appellant craves, leave or reserving the right to amend modify, alter, add, or forgo any ground(s) of appeal at any time before or during the hearing of this appeal.”
7. Before us, at the outset, Learned DR submitted that the only issue raised by the Revenue is with respect to penalty levied by AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and which was deleted by CIT(A). Before us, Learned DR supported the order of AO.
8. On the other hand Learned AR supported the order of CIT(A).
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. In the present appeal, Revenue is aggrieved by the deletion of levy of penalty of Rs.81,06,927/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on the addition of Rs.2,40,84,750/- that was made by AO. We find that CIT(A) while deleting the penalty at para 4.1 of his order has noted that the addition made by the AO on which the penalty has been levied was deleted by ITAT and since the quantum addition has been deleted, the penalty does not survive. Before us, Revenue has not pointed to any fallacy in the findings of CIT(A) nor has placed any material on record to demonstrate that the aforesaid addition of Rs.2,40,84,750/- which was deleted by ITAT has been set aside by the higher judicial forum. Considering the totality of the aforesaid fact, we find no reason to interfere with the order of CIT(A). Thus the ground of Revenue is dismissed.
In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 04.07.2022
More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
- Shalin Jayantbhai Desai, Vadodara vs ACIT, Circle-4(2), Vadodara Present…ITA 2569/AHD/2026[2010-11]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2010-11
- Neo Structo Construction P. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs The Pr. CIT- 3, AhmedabadITA 1216/AHD/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2370/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2369/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ganesh Trimbak Saraf And Another vs. The State Of Maharashtra And AnotherBombay · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S. Vajram Infra Material Industries vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Tyre Center vs. The Superintendent Of CGSTAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Monolith Resorts Private Limited vs. The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Sutlej Textiles And Industries Limited vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 26 Oct 2026