JAGAT SINGH,JIND vs. ITO, WARD- 38(3), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2522/DEL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 July 2021AY 2009-104 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the issue of penalty to the Assessing Officer to be decided afresh after the quantum of addition is decided. This is because the quantum addition itself was set aside by the Tribunal for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's returned income was significantly increased by the Assessing Officer due to additions under Section 68. The CIT(A) confirmed a penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) based on these additions.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be sustained when the underlying addition under Section 68 has been set aside for fresh consideration. The validity of the penalty in light of the fresh adjudication of the quantum of income.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 271(1)(c),Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI ‘C’ BENCH,

Before: SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, & SHRI K.N. CHARY

For Appellant: Shri R.R. Singla, Adv
For Respondent: Ms. Anima, Sr. DR
Hearing: 22.07.2021Pronounced: 22.07.2021

PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER,

1.

This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the CIT(A) - 13, New Delhi dated 27.02.2018 pertaining to A.Y 2009-10.

2.

The sum and substance of the grievance of the assessee is that the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer amounting to Rs. 22,61,514/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as 'The Act'].

3.

The roots for levy of penalty lie in the assessment order dated 28.12.2011 framed u/s 143(3) of the Act wherein the returned income of Rs. 1,55,650/- was assessed at Rs. 68,08,650/- after making addition u/s 68 of the Act amounting to Rs. 66,53,000/-.

4.

The quarrel travelled upto the Tribunal, and the Tribunal vide order dated 10.07.2018 in decided the quarrel as under:

“7. Assessee had produced before Assessing Officer the summary of all Bank Account for the year 2008-09 with Cash Flow Statement and list of person whom the advances were given with their affidavits, aadhar cards and bank accounts statement available at page 59 to 95 of the Paper Book, which have not been considered by the AO as well as by the Ld. CIT(A). In view of the matter, it would be in the interest of justice to set aside the matter to the AO to decide afresh after given an opportunity of being heard to the assessee by passing a speaking order and by taking into consideration that the assessee is an agriculturist and has brought on record the entire details concerning additions in question. Consequently, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes”.

5.

Since the foundation has been restored to the file of the Assessing Officer to be decided afresh, we deem it proper and just to restore this issue of levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer is directed to decide the levy of penalty afresh after deciding the quantum.

6.

In the result the appeal of the assessee in is allowed for statistical purposes.

The order is pronounced in the open court in the presence of both the rival representative on 22.07.2021.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →