Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH : D : NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI R.K. PANDA & MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE
BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2001-02 Standard Chartered Grindlays Pty Ltd. Vs DCIT, (Formerly ANZ Grindlays Bank), Circle 3(1)(2), C/o Shashi M Kapila, Advocate, New Delhi. 17th Mahatma Gandhi Road, Lajpat Nagar IV (Near Metro Hospital), New Delhi. PAN: AAACA1049A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Ms Shashi M. Kapila, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Prabha Kant, CIT, DR Date of Hearing : 11.08.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 11.08.2021 ORDER
PER R.K. PANDA, AM:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 27.04.2017 of the CIT(A)-25, New Delhi, relating to assessment year 2001-02.
Although a number of grounds have been raised by the assessee, these all relate to the order of the CIT(A) in confirming the penalty of Rs.14,47,45,008/- levied by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act.
The ld. Counsel for the assessee, at the outset, submitted that the AO, in the order passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, had levied penalty on the following two additions:-
(i) Disallowance of expenditure of Rs.68,10,18,767/- incurred by the assessee for access and user of technology related services for its business in India. (ii) Disallowance on account of payments made to clubs – Rs.30,000/-
Referring to the order of the Tribunal in quantum appeal, vide ITAs No.2920/Del/2008 filed by the assessee and filed by the Revenue, order dated 26th October, 2020 for A.Y. 2001-02, she drew the attention of the Bench to para 18 of the order and submitted that the amount of Rs.30,000/- confirmed by the CIT(A) on account of club expenses have been deleted. Similarly, referring to para 30 of the order of the Tribunal, she submitted that the Tribunal has also deleted the disallowance of Rs.68,10,18,767/-. Thus, both the issues on which the penalty has been levied have been decided in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal in quantum appeal and, therefore, the penalty levied by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A) should be deleted.
The ld. DR, on the other hand, fairly conceded that the issues stand decided in favour of the assessee.
We have heard the rival arguments and perused the record. We find, the very basis on which the penalty has been levied does not survive in view of the decision of the Tribunal in quantum appeal whereby both the additions made by the AO stand deleted. Therefore, the penalty does not survive. Accordingly, the order of the CIT(A) sustaining the penalty levied by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is cancelled and the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed.