IMPERIAL AUTO INDUSTRIES LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1, FARIDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3865/DEL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 June 2022AY 2014-154 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 quantum additions on which the penalty was based were deleted, the penalty did not survive. The ad hoc disallowance of business expenses was also set aside due to lack of specific justification and being based on surmises.

What were the facts?

The assessee challenged the confirmation of penalty under section 271(1)(c) and an ad hoc disallowance of business expenses. The penalty was levied with reference to quantum additions, and the disallowance was made without specific defects being pointed out.

What were the issues?

Whether a penalty under section 271(1)(c) can survive if the underlying quantum addition is deleted. Whether an ad hoc disallowance of business expenses without specific defects is sustainable.

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 ‘H’ : NEW DELHI

For Appellant: Shri Somil Aggarwal, Advocate
For Respondent: Ms. Anupama Singla, Senior DR
Hearing: 06.06.2022

PER SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :

1.

These are appeals by the assessee against the respective orders of the ld. CIT (Appeals) for the concerned assessment years. 2. Since appeals were heard together, these are being disposed off by this common order. levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) amounting to Rs.3,57,136/-.

4.

At the outset before us, ld. counsel of the assessee submitted that the quantum addition in this case has been already deleted by ITAT vide order dated 26.02.2020 in for AY 2011-12. Hence this penalty u/s 271(1)(c) levied with reference to those additions does not survive.

Ld. DR of the Revenue could not rebut this proposition. Hence since quantum addition has been deleted, we set aside the order of Revenue authorities levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on those additions.

5.

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed.

(AY 2014-15) 6. The Assessing Officer (AO) in his order made ad hoc disallowance as under :-

“2.3 Business/sales Promotion :- The assessee has claimed Rs. 81,28,031/- as business/sales promotion expenses. The assessee was asked to submit the detail of these expenses. On going through the details, it was found that part of the said expenses were of such nature which has no direct nexus with the business of the assessee. The A.R. was, therefore, asked to establish that the said expenses were incurred wholly and exclusively for the business purposes.

In response thereto, assessee has submitted that expenses are very much genuine but a part of these expenses may be disallowed treating the same for non-business purposes. Accordingly a lump-sum amount of Rs.8,20,000/- is added to the total income of the assessee.”

./2019 ITA No.3865/Del./2019 7. Upon assessee’s appeal, ld. CIT (A) noted the assessee’s submission that the AO also has not given any justification nor pointed any specific expense claimed by the assessee but not exclusively for business purposes. Hence he reduced the deduction to half of it i.e. Rs.4,10,000/-.

8.

Against the above order, assessee has filed appeal before the ITAT.

9.

We have heard both the parties and perused the records.

10.

Ld. counsel of the assessee pleaded that similar disallowance in earlier year in assessee’s own case has been deleted by ITAT, hence he pleaded that the addition cannot be sustained.

11.

Per contra, ld. DR for the Revenue relied upon the order of ld. CIT(A).

12.

Upon careful consideration, we note that the disallowance has been made on ad hoc basis without any specific defect pointed out. The same is based on surmises and conjectures, hence cannot be sustained. Moreover, ITAT in assessee’s own case for AY 2010-11 vide order dated 14.09.2018 has deleted such addition on the ground of absence of specific identification of defect. Hence, we set aside the order of the ld. CIT (A) and decide the issue in favour of the assessee.

13.

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 8th day of June, 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 →