RAMA ALLIED PRODUCTS MARKETING PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. CENTRAL CIRCLE-14, NEW DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that its coordinate benches had quashed the quantum assessment orders under Section 153A, finding them to be without any incriminating material. Citing the Supreme Court's ruling in K.C. Builders & Anr vs. ACIT, the Tribunal held that when the additions forming the basis of the penalty are deleted, the penalty cannot survive, and therefore, all appeals are allowed.
What were the facts?
The assessees were levied penalties under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, following assessments made under Section 153A/143(3). These penalties were confirmed by the CIT(A). The assessees then appealed to the ITAT, arguing that the underlying quantum assessments had already been quashed.
What were the issues?
Whether a penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) is sustainable when the underlying quantum assessment, made under Section 153A, has been quashed for lack of incriminating material.
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
Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN
IN THE INCOMETAXAPPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT and SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 2674 & 2675/DEL/2024 (Assessment Years : 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12) Rama Pashu Aahar Pvt. Ltd., vs. ACIT, CC – 14, H.No.77-78, Rama Residency, New Delhi. Siyana Road, Bulandshahr – 203 001 (Uttar Pradesh). (PAN: AACCR1144B) 2688, 2689, 2690, 2691 & 2692/DEL/2024 (Assessment Years : 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Rama Hygienic Products Pvt. Ltd., vs. DCIT, CC – 14, 27/29, Karol Bagh, S.O. Karol Bagh, New Delhi. Central Delhi, New Delhi – 110 005. (PAN: AAACR4597A) ITA Nos.2668, 2669, 2670, 2671 & 2672/DEL/2024 (Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Rama Allied Products Marketing Pvt. Ltd., vs. DCIT, CC – 14, 11/5B, Param Tower, Pusa Road, New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 005. (PAN: AACCR0688N) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Madhav Kapur, Advocate REVENUE BY : Smt. Amisha Gupta, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 27.02.2025 Date of Order : 09.04.2025
O R D E R
PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :
The assessees, Rama Pashu Aahar Pvt. Ltd., Rama Hygienic Products Pvt. Ltd. and Rama Allied Products Marketing Pvt. Ltd. has filed appeals against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-26, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to ‘Ld. CIT (A)’) all dated 07.05.2024 for different assessment years.
Since the issues are common and the appeals are connected, therefore, the same are heard together and being disposed off by this common order.
At the time of hearing, it was pointed out that the issue under consideration is penalty and the quantum appeals are already heard. It is due to pronounce. We observed that ITAT vide order dated 28.02.2025 in group cases in & 19 ors. in the cases of aforesaid assessees in quantum matters has decided the issue in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. 4. First we take up for AY 2009-10 in the case of Rama Pashu Aahar Pvt. Ltd. as lead case. The only issue involved in the present case is levying of penalty u/s 271 (1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) of Rs.7,23,020/- @ 100% of the tax sought to be 2674 & 2675/DEL/2024 ITA Nos.2687, 2688, 2689, 2690, 2691 & 2692/DEL/2024 ITA Nos.2668, 2669, 2670, 2671 & 2672/DEL/2024 evaded.
Briefly stated the facts necessary for adjudication of the controversy at hand are : On the basis of assessment completed under section 153A/143(3) of the Act, penalty proceedings were initiated u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Declining the contentions raised by the assessee, AO proceeded to levy the penalty of Rs.7,23,020/- @ 100% of the tax sought to be evaded.
Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT (A) who has confirmed the penalty by dismissing the appeal.
Aggrieved, the assessee has come up before us by way of filing the present appeal.
Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. We observed that coordinate bench in the quantum proceedings in assessee’s own case in for AY 2009-10 vide order dated 28.02.2025 held that the assessment completed u/s 153A is without any incriminating material and, accordingly quashed the assessment order. Hence, we hold that when the assessment order in quantum appeal is quashed, the penalty levied on the basis of the quantum appeal is not sustainable.
Undisputedly, coordinate Bench of the Tribunal vide order dated 29.02.2025 (supra) quashed the assessment. In these circumstances, the 2674 & 2675/DEL/2024 2688, 2689, 2690, 2691 & 2692/DEL/2024 ITA Nos.2668, 2669, 2670, 2671 & 2672/DEL/2024 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 being ITA No.2673/Del/20245 is hereby allowed.
With regard to assessees, Rama Pashu Aahar Pvt. Ltd., Rama Hygienic Products Pvt. Ltd. and Rama Allied Products Marketing Pvt. Ltd., in other 9 appeals for different assessments years i.e. AYs 2009-10 to 2012-13 are concerned, since the facts and issue are exactly similar to assessee’s appeal in AY 2009-10 in the case of Rama Pashu Aahar Pvt. Ltd. our above findings in the said case in AY 2009-10 are applicable mutatis mutandis in all the other 9 appeals of the aforesaid assessees in AYs 2009-10 to 2012-13. Accordingly, all the other 9 appeals being & 2675/Del/2024 in Rama Pashu Aahar Pvt. Ltd., ITA Nos.2687 to 2690/Del/2025 in Rama Hygienic Products Pvt. Ltd. and ITA Nos.2668 to 2670/Del/2025 in Rama Allied Products Marketing Pvt. Ltd. filed by the assessees are allowed.
2674 & 2675/DEL/2024 2688, 2689, 2690, 2691 & 2692/DEL/2024 ITA Nos.2668, 2669, 2670, 2671 & 2672/DEL/2024 11. With regard to other appeals for AYs 2013-14 & 2014-15 in the cases of Rama Hygienic Products Pvt. Ltd. and Rama allied Products Marketing Pvt. Ltd., we observed that the additions in these cases in quantum appeals have been deleted by the coordinate Bench vide order dated 28.02.2025 on merits. Considering the above factual matrix that “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., the penalty levied in these cases are deleted and the appeals in the aforesaid assessment years are allowed.
To sum up : all the appeals filed by different assessees are allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 9th day of April, 2025.
Similar judgments
Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.
- Sai Samarth Enterprises, Mumbai vs DCIT, CC- 1, ThaneMumbai24 May 2021Allowed
Also relies on K.C. Builders & Anr. v. ACIT
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was invalid as it did not specify the limb of Section 271(1)(c) under which the penalty was being levied. The notice was issued in a standard proforma without striking out the ir...
- Makemytrip (India) Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs DCIT, New DelhiDelhi16 Jan 2019Allowed
Also relies on K.C. Builders & Anr. v. ACIT
The Tribunal held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be sustained if the additions on which it is based are deleted or are based on debatable issues. The Tribunal found that the disallowance of payment gateway c...
- Nameeta V. Chhabria, Mumbai vs Addl CIT 11(1), MumbaiMumbai15 Feb 2017Allowed
Also relies on K.C. Builders & Anr. v. ACIT
The Tribunal held that the assessee acted under a bonafide belief that the income was to be offered for taxation in AY 2010-11, as it was quantified late. Since tax was already deducted at source at the maximum marginal ...
- Laxmiben Narayan Chaute, Surat vs ITO, Ward 1(2)(3), SuratSurat17 Nov 2025Allowed
Also relies on K.C. Builders & Anr. v. ACIT
The Tribunal noted that a co-ordinate bench had allowed the appeal against the quantum addition. Therefore, if the addition on which the penalty was based is deleted, there is no basis for levying the penalty. The Tribun...
- Rama Hygienic Products Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs Central Circle-14, New DelhiDelhi10 Apr 2025Allowed
Also relies on K.C. Builders & Anr. v. ACIT
The Tribunal noted that its coordinate benches had quashed the quantum assessment orders under Section 153A, finding them to be without any incriminating material. Citing the Supreme Court's ruling in K.C. Builders & Anr...
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
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- R.K.Service Station, Balasore vs. Commissioner CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Tankala Soumya vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Rayagada Circle, RayagadaOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Pooja, Town Hallroad, Cuttack vs. State Tax Officer, Cuttack-I West Circle,CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Chicvogue Fashions Lip, Ganjam vs. State Tax Officer Bhubaneswar- Ii CircleOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Priya, Townhall Road, Cuttack vs. Superintendent Cuttack- I Range, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026