ARUN DUGGAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 4, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5448/DEL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 April 2022AY 2010-113 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 additions on the basis of which the penalty was levied have already been deleted by a previous order of the Tribunal, the penalty cannot survive. Therefore, the penalty is deleted.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer determined the assessee's total income at Rs. 13,62,32,600/-. The CIT(A) further enhanced the income by Rs. 2,12,25,000/- and imposed a penalty of Rs. 4,30,74,854/- under Section 271(1)(c).

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be sustained when the additions forming the basis of the penalty have been deleted.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 250,Section 153A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “A”: NEW DELHI

For Respondent: Mr. Ishtiyaque Ahmed, Ld. CIT DR
Hearing: 13/04/2022Pronounced: 29/04/2022

O R D E R PER N.K. CHOUDHRY, J. M.: 1. The present appeal is preferred by the Assessee/Appellantherein against the order dated 30.12.2018 impugned herein passed by CIT(A)-23, New Delhi (hereinafter called in short as the “ld. Commissioner”), u/s 250 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) for Assessment Year 2010-11, whereby the ld. Commissioner imposed the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, to the tune of Rs. 4,30,74,854/- @ 125% of the quantum of income determined by him.

2.

In this case,the assessment order dated 30.12.2017 was passed by the AO u/s 153Aof the Act for the Assessment Year under consideration and total income of the Assessee was determined at 13,62,32,600/- as against the returned income of Rs.5,14,140/-.

3.

Against the said assessmentorder, the Assessee preferred first appeal before the ld. Commissioner who vide order dated 30.12.2018 in appeal, further enhanced the income of the Assessee to the tune of Rs. 2,12,25,000/-as unexplained credit of the Assessee for the Assessment Year under consideration.

4.

The ld. Commissioner also initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and concealment of particulars of income and ultimately while passing impugned order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, imposed the penalty of Rs. 4,30,74,854/- @ 125% of the quantum of income allegedly sought to be evaded as determined by him.

5.

Aggrieved against the impugned order, the Assessee has preferred the instant appeal.

6.

Heard the parties and perused the material available on record. At the outset, it was claimed by the ld.AR and not refuted by the Ld. DR that the Hon’ble Tribunal vide its order dated 19.01.2021 has allowed the Assessee’s quantum appeal no. the order dated 30.12.2018 passed by the ld.Commissioner u/s 250 of the Act and deleted the addition on the basis of which the penalty was imposed by the Ld. Commissioner.

Since the addition on the basis of which penalty was levied, hasalready been deleted, thepenalty cannot survive. Consequently, the penalty is deleted.

7.

In the result, appeal of the Assessee stands allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 29/04/2022.

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 →