ADDL. CIT, RANGE-4, NEW DELHI vs. HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2002/DEL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 September 2021AY 2007-085 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal followed its previous decision on identical facts for other assessment years. It held that if the quantum of income itself is under dispute and substantial questions of law have been framed by the High Court, the penalty cannot survive.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the deletion of penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) for Assessment Years 2006-07 and 2007-08. The assessee argued that similar penalties for other assessment years had been decided in their favour by the Tribunal.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is leviable when the quantum of income is disputed and substantial questions of law are admitted by the High Court.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI ‘C’ BENCH,

Before: SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, & SHRI KULDIP SINGH

For Appellant: Shri Gagan Kumar, Adv
Hearing: 01.09.2021Pronounced: 01.09.2021

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA No. 2001/DEL/2018
ITA No. 2002/DEL/2018

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER,

1.

The above two separate appeals by the Revenue are preferred against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals] - 35, New Delhi dated 15.12.2017 pertaining to Assessment Years 2006-07 and 2007-08 respectively.

2.

Since both the appeals were heard together, these are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity.

3. The common grievance in both these appeals relate to the deletion of penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as 'The Act' for short] amounting to Rs. 3,81,61,550/- in A.Y 2006-07 and Rs. 2,58,49,796/- in A.Y 2007-08.

3.

At the very outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee brought to our notice that the quarrel has already been settled by this Tribunal in A.Ys 2009-10 and 2005-06 in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.

4.

The ld. DR could not bring any distinguishing decision in favour of the Revenue.

5.

We have carefully perused the orders of the authorities below.

We find force in the contention of the ld. counsel for the assessee. On identical set of facts, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was levied in A.Ys 2009-10 and 2005-06 and the quarrel travelled upto the Tribunal and the Tribunal in and 2000/DEL/2018 for A.Ys 2009-10 and 2005-06 vide order dated 25.08.2021 held as under:

“7. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The issue in the present appeal is with respect to the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. It is an undisputed fact that AO has levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on three issues stated in Para – 4 (i), ii) & (iii) hereinabove. On all the aforesaid three issues on which AO had levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, we find that the issues were carried by the assessee before the Hon’ble High Court & the Hon’ble High Court had admitted the appeal of assessee holding it to be substantial question of law. We find the Hon’ble High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Harsh International (supra) has held that if the quantum order itself has been challenged and the court has framed substantial questions of law in the appeal preferred by the assessee, it shows that the alleged concealment is not final and the issue is disputable and in such cases, the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer cannot survive. Apart from the aforesaid, we are also find that CIT(A) while deleting the penalty has observed that there was no concealment of the particulars of income nor assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income and therefore the penalty was not leviable. Before us, no fallacy in the findings of CIT(A) has been pointed out by the Revenue nor has Revenue placed on record any contrary binding decision in its support. In view of the aforesaid facts, we find no reason to interfere to the order of CIT(A) and thus the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.”

6.

Respectfully following the decision of this Tribunal [supra], both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed.

7.

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue in & 2002/DEL/2018 are dismissed.

The order is pronounced in the open court on 01.09.2021 in the presence of both the rival representatives.

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 →