PUSHPAK STRUCTURES & ENGINEERS P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-20(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 reassessment proceedings were quashed by a co-ordinate bench, the consequential penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) does not survive. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the Assessing Officer was directed to delete the penalty.
What were the facts?
The assessee's return of income was assessed at Rs. 40,74,900 after additions for unexplained share application money and commission. A penalty of Rs. 12,60,000 was imposed under Section 271(1)(c) and upheld by the CIT(A).
What were the issues?
Whether a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can survive when the underlying reassessment proceedings have been quashed.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘FRIDAY-A’: NEW DELHI
ORDER PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal is preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 24.09.2019 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, New Delhi {CIT (A)} for Assessment Year 2009-10, wherein vide the impugned order, the Ld. CIT (A) has upheld the imposition of penalty of Rs.12,60,000/- imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (herein after called as ‘the Act’).
2.0 Brief facts of the case are that the return of income was filed declaring income at Rs.NIL and the assessment was completed at an Pushpak Structure & Engineers P. Ltd. Vs. ITO income of Rs.40,74,900/- after making addition on account of alleged unexplained share application money amounting to Rs.39,95,000/- and alleged unexplained expenditure on account of commission amounting to Rs.79,900/-. Subsequently, the impugned penalty was imposed and the imposition of penalty was upheld by the Ld. CIT (A). Now, the assessee is before this Tribunal challenging the upholding of the penalty.
3.0 At the outset, the Ld. Authorized Representative submitted that the assessee’s appeal against the quantum addition has been allowed by the ITAT and, therefore, the penalty does not survive. He placed on record copy of the order of the ITAT in the quantum appeal bearing wherein vide order dated 19.12.2019, the re- assessment proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer were quashed.
4.0 The Ld Sr. Departmental Representative fairly accepted that since the reassessment proceedings had been quashed by the ITAT, the consequential penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act would not survive.
5.0 Having heard both the parties and after having gone through the order of the Co-ordinate Bench in assessee’s own case in the quantum appeal in we agree with the contention of the Ld. Pushpak Structure & Engineers P. Ltd. Vs. ITO Authorized Representative that since the reassessment has been quashed, penalty imposed does not survive. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT (A) and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty.
6.0 In the final result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 13/05/2020.
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 →- 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
- M/S Rajkalpana Travels PVT. LTD. vs. Commissioner CGST, Delhi North CommissionerateDelhi · 28 Oct 2026