DEEPAK GARG,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2053/DEL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 January 2022AY 2012-133 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that since the additions made by the AO in the quantum appeal were deleted and that order had attained finality, the consequential penalty proceedings would also vitiate. Therefore, the penalty order was set aside.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed a revised return of income due to a discrepancy in purchase figures. The Assessing Officer (AO) assessed a significantly higher income and levied a penalty under Section 271(1)(c). The CIT(A) confirmed the penalty, stating inaccurate particulars were furnished.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be sustained when the additions on which it was based have been deleted in appeal. Whether furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, deemed as concealment, is valid when the primary additions are deleted.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘B’ NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI R. K. PANDA & SHRI N. K. CHOUDHRY

Hearing: 06.01.2022Pronounced: 31.01.2022

ORDER PER N. K. CHOUDHRY, JM

This appealhas been filed by the Assesseeagainst the order dated 15/01/2019 impugned herein passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) -14, New Delhi { in short ‘Ld. Commissioner’} for the Assessment Year 2012-13, whereby the Ld. Commissioner confirmed the order of Ld. A.O levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act (in short ‘the Act’ ) .

2.

In this case the original e-return was filed by the Assessee on 13/6/2012 by declaring total income of Rs. 4,87,370/- and subsequently the same was revised on dated 12/2/2013 by declaring total income of Rs. 4,94,580/- by giving reason for revising the ITR that discrepancy has been occurred in purchase figure while e-filing the original ITR.

2.1 Later on the case of the Assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS and statutory noticesu/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the act were issued. After hearing the Assesseeand considering the details and documents produced by the Assessee, the A.O assessed the total incomeof the Assessee to the tune of Rs. 64,53,540/- and also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) for concealment and for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and ultimately levied the penalty of Rs. 12,03,983/- against which the Assessee preferred first Appeal before the CIT(A)-14, New Delhi who vide impugned order 15/11/2019 dismissed the appeal filed by the Assessee by observing that the Assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income which deemed as concealment under Explanation 1 to Section 271(1)(c) of Act as full material facts were not disclosed in the audited accounts and return of income and Assessee’s explanation has also not been established as bonafide. Against the impugned order the Assessee is in appeal before us.

3.

Heard the Parties and perused the material available on record. It is pertinent to note that against the order passed by Ld. A.O u/s 143(3) of IT Act, quantum appeal No. 26/15/16/Del/2016-17 was preferred beforeCIT(A)-14, New Delhi. The Ld.CIT(A) vide Order dated 24/3/2017, has allowed the said appeal by deleting all the addition made by A.O. and the Revenue Department has not preferred any appeal against the said order and therefore the same has attained finality. It is well settled law that once the additions made by the A.O have been deleted then consequential to the same, entire penalty proceedings would vitiate. Therefore, considering the peculiar fact and circumstances of the case, we are inclined to set aside the impugned order under challenge passed by the Ld. Commissioner, hence ordered accordingly.

4.

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 31/01/2022

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 →