Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against a penalty levied under Section 271AAC(1). The penalty was related to additions made under Sections 68/69 read with Section 115BBE. The assessee's quantum appeal for the same assessment year had already been accepted, quashing the underlying assessment.
Held
The Tribunal held that since the assessment order itself was quashed in the assessee's prior appeal, the penalty levied based on that assessment order had no legal basis. Therefore, the penalty was directed to be deleted.
Key Issues
Whether a penalty levied under Section 271AAC(1) can sustain when the assessment order on which it is based has been quashed.
Sections Cited
271AAC(1), 68, 69, 115BBE, 153C
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘A’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN
This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2017-18, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-24, [in short, the “CIT(A)”], New Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/APL/M/250/2024-25/1070712743(1), dated 28.11.2024 involving proceedings under section 271AAC(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
Case called twice. None appears at the appellant’s behest. She is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.
Learned Departmental Representative vehemently argues during the course of hearing that both the lower authorities herein have rightly levied section 271AAC(1) penalty of Rs. 8,14,987/- in the assessee’s hands, pertaining to the corresponding sections 68/69 r.w.s. 115BBE addition @ 10% of the addition of Rs. 81,49,875/- made in the course of assessment framed on 31st December, 2022 and upheld in the CIT(A)’s order dated 17th May, 2023.
A perusal of the case file, however, indicates that the assessee had preferred her quantum appeal before the tribunal which already stands accepted in the learned coordinate bench’s order dated 31.12.2024, thereby quashing section 153C assessment itself framed on 31st December, 2022 (supra). This being the clinching factual position, we hereby conclude that the impugned penalty has no legs to stand in very terms. The same is directed to be deleted therefore.