ITO WARD-54(5), NEW DELHI vs. ROSHAN LAL SHARMA, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 7997/DEL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 June 2022AY 2011-124 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Commissioner (Appeals) deleted the penalty because the addition on which it was based had already been deleted in the quantum proceedings. The Tribunal upheld this decision, finding no subsisting addition to sustain the penalty.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer imposed a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) based on an addition made in the assessment order. The assessee appealed this penalty to the Commissioner (Appeals).

What were the issues?

Whether a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can survive when the underlying addition in the assessment order has been deleted.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY & DR. BRR KUMAR

For Appellant: Shri Ratnesh Kumar Gupta, CA, Ms. Indu Sen, SR. DR
Hearing: 28.06.2022Pronounced: 28.06.2022

ORDER PER SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This is an appeal by the assessee against order dated 18.07.2019 of learned Commissioner (Appeals)-35, New Delhi, deleting the penalty imposed of Rs.53,72,061 under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2011-12.

2.

At the outset, learned authorized representative appearing for the assessee submitted, the addition based on which penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was imposed stands deleted in the quantum proceedings. Thus, he submitted the penalty imposed could not have survived.

3.

Learned Departmental Representative relied upon the grounds raised.

4.

We have considered the rival submissions and perused material available on record.

5.

On a reading of paragraph 4.1 of the impugned order of learned Commissioner (Appeals), it becomes very much clear that based on the addition made in an assessment order passed under Section 144 of the Act, the Assessing Officer proceeded to impose penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. However, while deciding assessee’s appeal against the assessment order passed under Section 144 of the Act, learned Commissioner (Appeals) had deleted the additions made.

No material has been brought on record by the Revenue to demonstrate that the order passed by learned Commissioner (Appeals) in the quantum proceeding has been reversed. Thus, in absence of any subsisting addition, the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act cannot survive. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the decision of learned Commissioner (Appeals). Ground raised is dismissed.

6.

In the result, the appeal is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 28th June, 2022.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →