SANJY TANDON,DELHI vs. CIT(A)-37, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3609/DEL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 January 2021AY 2012-133 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 condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to a bona fide mistake. Since the quantum additions were deleted by a previous Tribunal order, the penalty levied on those additions was rendered baseless.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer made an addition of unexplained cash deposit. The CIT(A) confirmed the addition and also enhanced it, subsequently levying a penalty under Section 271(1)(c). The assessee's appeal against the CIT(A)'s order was initially wrongly filed before the CIT(A) himself.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be sustained when the underlying additions have been deleted. Whether delay in filing appeal due to a bona fide mistake should be condoned.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

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

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES “SMC”: DELHI

Before: SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI

Hearing: 05.01.2021Pronounced: 05.01.2021

This appeal by assessee has been directed against the order of Ld. CIT(Appeals)-37, New Delhi dated 22.09.2017 for AY 2012-13 levying the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. 2. I have heard Ld. Representatives of both the parties and perused the material on record. 3. Briefly the facts of the case are that AO passed the assessment order dated 05.03.2015 u/s 143(3) of the IT Act and made addition of unexplained cash deposit of Rs. 8,01,000/-. The Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 20.03.2017 not 2 ITA.No.3609/Del./2019 only confirm the addition but also enhanced the addition by Rs. 2,85,000/-. The Ld. CIT(A) vide impugned order levied the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act.

4.

Ld. Counsel for assessee submitted that the assessee preferred appeal against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 20.03.2017 before the Tribunal, whereby addition on account of cash deposit and enhancement was confirmed. The Tribunal in dated 08.01.2018 deleted both the additions and allowed the appeal of the assessee. He has, therefore, submitted that since quantum addition has been deleted, therefore, penalty may be cancelled. He has prayed that since assessee inadvertently filed appeal against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) before Ld. CIT(A) himself therefore in such circumstances delay in filing the appeal may be condoned. On the other hand, Ld. DR did not dispute the above contention of the assessee that quantum addition has been deleted.

5.

I have considered the submissions of both the parties. Since the Ld. CIT(A) levied the penalty vide impugned order dated 22.09.2017, therefore, the appeal should have been filed before the Tribunal. The assessee has wrongly filed appeal before Ld. CIT(A) against the order dated 22.09.2017 and ultimately on realization the mistake withdrawal the appeal before Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 15.02.2019. In such circumstances, assessee has a bona fide explanation in not 3 ITA.No.3609/Del./2019 filing the appeal within the period of limitation. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned. Since quantum addition has been deleted by the Tribunal, therefore, there is no basis left for levy the penalty against the assessee. 6. I, accordingly, set aside the orders of authorities below and cancel the penalty. 7. In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 05.01.2021.

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 →