KAPIL DEV RANWAN,RAJASTHAN vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 1, GHAZIABAD

The sum and substance of the grievance of the assessee is that the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T.

At the very outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee stated that the quantum addition has been deleted by this Tribunal in vide order dated 05.11.2020.

The ld. DR fairly conceded to this.

We have carefully perused the order of this Tribunal in for the impugned Assessment Year. We find force in the contention of the ld. counsel for the assessee. While deciding the appeal, this Tribunal has held as under:

“7. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. It is pertinent to note that the assessee was working in UK for more than 183 days which was never disputed by the Revenue at any point of time. Besides this the Revenue authorities are very well aware that the assessee has paid taxes in UK for the remuneration received in UK. The assessee is a resident of India. Therefore, Article 16(2) does not apply in the present scenario. In-fact, if we go through the provisions of Section 90(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and Article 24 of the India-UK DTAA, then the claim made by the assessee is valid and, therefore, the Assessing Officer as well as the CIT(A) was not right in making and sustaining the addition in that respect. Hence, appeal of the assessee is allowed.”

Sublato Fundamento Cadit Opus, meaning thereby, that in case the foundation is removed, the super structure falls. Since the foundation [assessment] has been removed, the super structure i.e. penalty must fall. Accordingly, the penalty is directed to be deleted.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in is allowed.