ANIKA INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 2(2), NEW DELHI
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that since the additions made in the quantum assessment proceedings were deleted by a coordinate bench, the penalty levied for concealment of income has no basis. Therefore, the penalty is not sustainable.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal challenges a penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars. The penalty was levied based on additions made in the assessment order.
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 quantum proceedings.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- K.C. Builders & Anr. v. ACIT241 citing265 ITR 562 · 2004 · SC · Read judgment
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘A’ : NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI O.P. KANT & SHRI KULDIP SINGH
PER KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER :
Appellant, M/s. Anika International Private Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the assessee’) by filing the present appeal sought to set aside the impugned order dated 05.03.2018 passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-1, New Delhi confirming the penalty order dated 28.03.2015 passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) qua the assessment year 2010-11 on the grounds inter alia that :-
“1. The Learned Assessing Officer has erred in imposing a penalty amounting to Rs.23,49,750/- u/s 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of furnishing inaccurate particulars.”
Briefly stated the facts necessary for adjudication of the controversy at hand are : On the basis of assessment completed under section 143(3) of the Act, penalty proceedings were initiated u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealing the particulars of income. Declining the contentions raised by the assessee, AO proceeded to levy the penalty of Rs.23,49,750/- @ 100% of the tax sought to be evaded.
Assessee carried the matter by way of appeal before the ld. CIT (A) who has confirmed the penalty by dismissing the appeal. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee has come up before the Tribunal by way of filing the present appeal.
We have heard the ld. Authorized Representatives of the parties to the appeal, gone through the documents relied upon and orders passed by the revenue authorities below in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case.
At the very outset, it is brought to our notice by the ld. AR for the assessee that additions made in the quantum proceedings have since been deleted by the Tribunal in assessee’s own case in & 2081/Del/2014 for AY 2010-11 vide order dated 16.06.2017 and as such, penalty levied is not sustainable and brought on record the copy of the order of the Tribunal dated 16.06.2017 (supra).
Undisputedly, coordinate Bench of the Tribunal vide order dated 16.06.2017 (supra) deleted the additions. In these circumstances, the penalty levied by the AO is not sustainable in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case cited as K.C. Builders & Anr vs. ACIT – 265 ITR 562 (SC) because “when the addition made in the assessment order on the basis of which penalty for concealment is levied have been deleted there remains no basis at all for levying the penalty for concealment and in such case, no penalty can survive and the penalty is liable to be cancelled.” So, in view of the matter, the penalty order passed by the AO and confirmed by the ld. CIT (A) is set aside and the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed. Order pronounced in open court on this 4th day of August, 2021 after the conclusion of the virtual hearing.
More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
- Shalin Jayantbhai Desai, Vadodara vs ACIT, Circle-4(2), Vadodara Present…ITA 2569/AHD/2026[2010-11]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2010-11
- Neo Structo Construction P. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs The Pr. CIT- 3, AhmedabadITA 1216/AHD/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2370/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2369/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Commissioner/Additional Commissioner Of Central Tax vs. M/S INDIA Agro Exports Private LimitedKarnataka · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Rohit Medical Systems vs. Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Services Tax And Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Shivam Kumar vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 28 Oct 2026