HARNEET SINGH CHANDHOKE,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE- 35(1), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6949/DEL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 June 2022AY 2006-072 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 assessment order, which formed the basis for the penalty, was quashed, the penalty itself does not survive. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against a penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) for AY 2006-07. The penalty was based on an assessment order that was later quashed by a coordinate bench of the Tribunal.

What were the issues?

Whether a penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) can survive if the underlying assessment order is quashed.

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 DLEHI

Before: SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA & SHRI N.K. CHOUDHRY

For Appellant: Shri Mayank Aggarwal, Ld. Adv
For Respondent: Shri B.K. Singh, Ld. Sr. DR
Hearing: 29/06/2022

This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 20.06.2019, impugned herein, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-12, New Delhi (in short “Ld.

Commissioner”), whereby the ld. Commissioner affirmed the levy of penalty by the Assessing Officer u/s.271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the assessment year 2006-07.

2.

The assessee, at the outset, submitted and drew our attention to the order passed by Hon’ble Coordinate Bench of Tribunal in assesssee’s quantum appeal, i.e., for the year under consideration, decided on 30.07.2021, whereby the [2] Hon’ble Bench quashed the assessment order dated 21.03.2014, on the basis of which penalty proceedings have been initiated and penalty was imposed, which has been subsequently affirmed by the ld. Commissioner vide impugned order under challenge before us.

The ld. AR, therefore, submitted that in view of the aforesaid facts, the impugned penalty does not survive. Ld. DR did not refute the claim of the assessee.

3.

Considering the undisputed fact, as narrated above, we find that once the quantum appeal of the assessee for the year under consideration stands allowed by the Hon’ble Coordinate Bench of Tribunal vide order dated 30.07.2021(supra), by quashing the assessment order, the very basis of imposing the impugned penalty stands collapsed and the penalty imposed does not survive.

Accordingly, the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer and affirmed by the ld. Commissioner stands deleted.

4.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on 29/06/2022

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 →