M/S TIME BOUND CONTRACTS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5910/DEL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 March 2020AY 2006-073 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 noted that similar issues of penalty for non-appearance in the assessee's own case for other assessment years were decided in favour of the assessee. Following the same reasoning, the penalty was deleted.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against a penalty levied under Section 271(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act for the assessment year 2006-07. The penalty was imposed for non-appearance before the authorities.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(b) for non-appearance is justified when similar defaults in other years were cancelled by the Tribunal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(b)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘G’, NEW DELHI

For Appellant: Adv. eft 3TtT TT /
Hearing: 16.03.2020Pronounced: 16.03.2020

PER SUSHMA CHOWLA,VP The present appeal filed by assessee is against order of CIT(A)-13, New Delhi dated 19.08.2016 relating to assessment year 2006-07 against penalty levied under section 27 l(l)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act).

2.

The issue raised in the present appeal is against the levy of penalty u/s 271(l)(b) of the Act.

1.

Assessment Year 2006-07 3. The learned AR for the assessee pointed out that the issues raised in the present appeal stands squarely covered by different orders of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case,

4.

We find that similar issue of levy of penalty under section 271(l)(b) of the Act arose before the Tribunal in relating to Assessment Year 2009-10. The Tribunal vide order dated held as under;-

“We find merit in the plea of the assessee in this regard. On the perusal of the Tribunal’s order in assessee’s own case for Assessment Years 2005- 06, 2010-11 & 2012-13 vide order dated 07.01.2020, we find that similar default o f non-appearance has been noted, by the Tribunal and the penalty levied u/s 271(l)(b) of the Act has been cancelled in the respective years. Following the same parity o f reasoning, we delete the penalty levied u/s 271 (1 )(b) of the Act. ”

5.

We find that the issue raised in the present appeal is squarely covered by earlier order of the Tribunal and following the same parity of reasoning, the penalty levied under section 271(l)(b) of the Act is deleted. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed.

6.

In .the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 16th March, 2020.

Sd/- Sd/- (SUSHMA CHOWLA) (PRASHANT MAHARISHI) ! ACCOUNTANT MEMBER WSTSf / VICE PRESIDENT efesTT SH i ■Tn^?T 3F)fSld/C.onv o f the Order is forwarded to : 1. J iJ lcIlS lf / The Appellant 2. y r i|Sjf / The Respondent 3. 3t r r r a rrg iP O T J ra ') / The c i t (aj 4. egt&it •iU'M'hl / The Pr. C ii 5, fa m a fm a r t ^ u i , / d r , h a t , Delhi

More judgments on Section 271(1)(b)

All 2,912 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(b) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →