SINGHAL FASTNERS CO.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-23(4), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 7409/DEL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 March 2022AY 2005-064 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 noted that the quantum addition, on which the penalty was based, had been set aside to the AO's file. Therefore, the penalty appeal was also restored to the AO to be decided afresh after the assessment is decided.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal concerned a penalty of Rs. 9 lacs levied by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 271(1)(c). The assessee argued that the penalty was wrongly sustained by the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty sustained by the CIT(A) is valid when the underlying quantum addition has been set aside. Procedural compliance in levying the penalty.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘G’, NEW DELHI

Before: SH. N. K. BILLAIYA & MS. ASTHA CHANDRA

Hearing: 30/03/2022Pronounced: 30/03/2022

This appeal filed by the assessee is preferred against the order of the CIT(A)-28, New Delhi dated 18.10.2018 for A.Y.2005-06.

2.

The sum and substance of the grievance of the assessee is that the CIT(A) erred in sustaining the penalty of Rs. 9 lacs levied by the AO u/s. 271 (1) (c) of the Act.

3.

At the very outset the Counsel for the assessee drew our attention to the decision of this Tribunal in order dated 03.12.2021 and pointed out that this Tribunal in respect of the appeal against quantum addition has set aside the issue to the files of the AO.

4.

We have carefully perused the orders of the authorities below and the decision of this Tribunal in ITA No.7410/Del/2018. This Tribunal in the said order has decided as under :-

“6. We heard the submissions. In the light of the prayer of the Ld. Sr. DR we deem it appropriate to set aside the respective orders to ensure that the procedural violation etc alleged is addressed at the earliest. A perusal of the ground raised by the assessee shows that before the CIT(A), the assessee is seen to have agitated that the procedure laid down by the Apex Court in the case of GKN driveshaft reported in 259 ITR 19 (SC) has not been followed. Accordingly, considering the ground raised and the submissions we deem it appropriate to set aside the respective orders in both the appeals back to the file of the Assessing Officer to address the procedural deficit pointed out and thus pass an order in accordance with law after giving the assessee reasonable opportunity of being heard.

7. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose as per the pronouncement made in the open court via Webex at the time of hearing.”

5.

Since the quantum addition has been set aside to the files of the AO, we deem it fit to restore this appeal to the files of the AO.

The AO is directed to decide the appeal afresh after deciding the assessment. The appeal is accordingly allowed for statistical purpose. 6. Decision announced in the open court in the presence of Ld. Sr. DR.

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 →