DCIT CIRCLE-18(2), NEW DELHI vs. NOIDA SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGY PARK LTD., NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2991/DEL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 June 2022AY 2010-113 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(Appeals) in deleting the penalty. Since the quantum addition was set aside, the penalty levied on that basis could not stand.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the deletion of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) by the CIT(Appeals). The original addition, which formed the basis for the penalty, had been deleted by the ITAT and the assessment order was set aside.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be sustained when the underlying addition has been deleted or set aside.

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 “E” NEW DELHI ]

Before: SHRI G. S. PANNUSHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD

For Appellant: Shri Shashi Bhushan Shukla
Hearing: 07/06/2022

आदेश / O R D E R PER C. N. PRASAD, J. M. :

1.

This appeal filed by the Revenue is against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-6 [hereinafter referred to as CIT (Appeals)] New Delhi, dated 30.01.2019 in deleting penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) for assessment year 2010-11.

2.

In spite of issue of notice none appeared on behalf of the assessee. This appeal is disposed of on hearing the ld. DR.

3.

On hearing the ld. DR and perusing the order of the ld. CIT (Appeals) we observe that the Tribunal vide order dated 9.02.2018 has deleted the addition of Rs.9,19,93,625/- which was the basis for imposition of penalty. The ld. CIT (Appeals) in his order also observed that Hon’ble Delhi High Court in dated 28.11.2018 in Pr. CIT Vs. Noida Software Technology Park Ltd. dismissed the appeal of the Department. The ld. CIT (Appeals) also observed that the assessment order on the basis of which the penalty was levied has been set aside by the ITAT to the Assessing Officer. The penalty cannot stand by itself and is liable to be cancelled. Before us the Revenue could not admit any change in position thereafter. Therefore, since the quantum addition stands set aside to the Assessing Officer the penalty has no legs to stand. Accordingly, we sustain the order of the ld. CIT (Appeals) and reject the grounds raised by the Revenue.

5.

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on : 07/06/2022.

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 →