SMT. SNEH LATA SAWHNEY,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 426/DEL/2017Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 April 2022AY 2012-135 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 appeal of the assessee was allowed by quashing the assessment proceedings due to a defective notice under section 143(2), the penalty imposed does not survive.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was directed against the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c). The assessee argued that the penalty was unsustainable as the assessment order itself was quashed by a previous ITAT order.

What were the issues?

Whether a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be sustained when the assessment order on which it is based has been quashed due to a procedural defect in issuing the notice under Section 143(2).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 143(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES “G” : DELHI

Before: SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI & SHRI KUL BHARAT

Hearing: 21.04.2022Pronounced: 21.04.2022

Date of Hearing : 21.04.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 21.04.2022 ORDER PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, A.M. :

This appeal filed by the assessee has been directed against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-25, New Delhi in Appeal No.302/15-16/42/16-17 dated 26.10.2016 relating to the A.Y. 2012-13.

2 ITA.No.426/Del./2017 Smt. Sneh Lata Sawhney, New Delhi. 2. Though the assessee has raised various grounds of appeal, but, all grounds relates to levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 by the A.O. and sustained by the Ld. CIT(A).

3.

During the course of hearing, the Learned Counsel for the Assessee, at the outset, submitted that the Tribunal vide order dated 17.01.2020 in ITA.No.419/Del./ 2017 has allowed the appeal of the assessee by quashing the assessment order since the notice under section 143(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961 has been issued to the assessee beyond the prescribed period under the Act. Therefore, the Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that the very basis of imposing the penalty stands collapsed and there is no reason to sustain the penalty under consideration.

4.

The Ld. D.R. on the other hand, relied on the orders of the lower authorities.

5. We have heard the rival submissions of both the parties, perused the order of the A.O. and the Ld. CIT(A) and the order of the Tribunal dated 17.01.2020 (supra).

3 ITA.No.426/Del./2017 Smt. Sneh Lata Sawhney, New Delhi. Admittedly, the Tribunal vide order dated 17.01.2020 allowed the appeal of the assessee by quashing the assessment proceedings. The relevant observations of the Tribunal are as under :

“7. Under the provision of section 143(2) of the Act, proviso thereunder, the notice has to be issued within six months from the end of the assessment year i.e. by 30.09.2013. The notice in the case of the assessee is issued on 15.10.2013 i.e. beyond the time prescribed under the Act. Hence, the initiation of the proceedings and the jurisdiction invoked by the Assessing Officer suffers from infirmity. Consequently, we hold that the present assessment order is bad in law as the notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued beyond the limit prescribed under the Act. The additional ground of appeal raised by the assessee is thus allowed. Since the assessment has been quashed in the cases, we do not adjudicate the issue raised on merits.

4 ITA.No.426/Del./2017 Smt. Sneh Lata Sawhney, New Delhi. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.”

4.1. We find that since the quantum appeal of the assessee was allowed by the Tribunal vide order dated 17.01.2020 (supra), the penalty imposed by the A.O. and sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) does not survive. We, therefore, allow the appeal of the assessee.

5.

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 21.04.2022 at the time of hearing of the appeal.

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 →