BGK INFRATECH P.LTD (AMALGMATED COMPNAY OF NOVA INFRATECH P.LTD),NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-15, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5231/DEL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 October 2021AY 2010-114 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 made by the Assessing Officer was deleted by the Tribunal itself. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) had no basis and was directed to be deleted.

What were the facts?

The assessee's income was added back as capital gain on the sale of land, which was considered non-agricultural. Subsequently, a penalty was levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act.

What were the issues?

Whether a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be sustained when the underlying addition has been deleted by the appellate authority.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 143(3),Section 153C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SH. N. K. BILLAIYA & SH. KUL BHARAT

Hearing: 04/10/2021Pronounced: 04/10/2021

PER N. K. BILLAIYA, AM:

1.

This appeal by the assessee is directed towards the order of the CIT(A)-XXVI, New Delhi dated 16.05.2018 pertaining to A.Y.2010-11.

2.

The solitary grievance of the assessee is that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty of Rs.193608/- levied u/s. 271 (1) (c) of the Act.

3.

The roots for the levy of penalty lie in the assessment order dated 28.03.2013 framed u/s.143 (3) r.w.s. 153 C of the Act.

4.

The assessment was completed by not accepting the sale of land as the sale of agricultural land and accordingly income of Rs.6,26,562/- on transfer of that land was added back to the income of the assessee as income from capital gain.

5.

The quantum addition travelled up to the Tribunal and the Tribunal in had considered the addition and the relevant ground read as under :-

“1.2 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (A) has erred in justifying the action of the Assessing Officer who has erred in making addition of Rs.6,26,562/- in respect of capital gain earned on transfer of agriculture land during the year without going through the facts, details as well as documentary evidence filed during the course of appellate proceeding.”

6.

The Tribunal held as under :-

7.

Since the quantum addition has been deleted by this Tribunal, the penalty levied u/s.271 (1) (c) of the Act does not have any leg to stand. We accordingly direct the AO to delete the penalty so levied.

8.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.

9.

Decision announced in the open court in the presence of both the representatives on 04.10.2021.

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 →