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

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6551/DEL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 June 2022AY 2012-134 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 foundational addition was deleted, the consequential penalty must also fall. Therefore, the penalty was directed to be deleted.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was against the confirmation of penalty under Section 271(1)(c). The quantum addition that formed the basis for the penalty had previously been deleted by the Tribunal.

What were the issues?

Whether a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be sustained when the underlying addition has been deleted. The validity of the quantum addition itself was also implicitly addressed.

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 ‘C’ BENCH,

Before: SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, & SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S

For Appellant: Ms. Deepika Agarwal, Adv, Ms. Viyushti Agarwal, Adv
For Respondent: Ms. Anupama Singla, Sr. DR
Hearing: 15.06.2022Pronounced: 15.06.2022

PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:-

This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the ld.

CIT(A), Ghaziabad dated 29.05.2019 pertaining to Assessment Year 2012- 13.

2.

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.

Act, 1961.

3.

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.

4.

The ld. DR fairly conceded to this.

5.

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:

1.

“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.”

6.

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.

7.

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

The order is pronounced in the open court on 15.06.2022 in the presence of both the rival representatives.

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 →