DILBAGH RAI CHAWLA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2918/DEL/2017Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 January 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 agreed that the penalty would not survive as the quantum addition, which formed the basis for the penalty, had been deleted by a previous ITAT order.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against a penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) for assessment year 2006-07. The penalty was upheld by the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether a penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) can survive if the underlying quantum addition is deleted.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “B”: NEW DELHI

For Appellant: Shri Raj Kumar, CA
For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Gupta, CIT
Hearing: 30/10/2019

This appeal is preferred by the assessee against order dated 22.3.2017 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 30, New Delhi {CIT(A)} for assessment year 2006-07 wherein the Ld. CIT (A) has upheld the imposition of penalty of Rs. 12,74,889/- imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.

Dilbagh Rai Chawla vs ACIT 2.0 At the outset, the Ld. Authorised Representative submitted that the assessee’s appeal in the quantum proceedings has been allowed vide order dated 8.8.2017 in ITA No. 257/Del/2013. A copy of the said order was placed on record and it was submitted that in view of quantum addition having been deleted, the resultant penalty would not survive.

3.0 The Ld. CIT (DR) fairly accepted that the quantum had been deleted by the ITAT and, therefore, penalty would not survive.

4.0 Having heard both the parties and after having perused the order of the Tribunal, we agree with the contention of the Ld. AR that the impugned penalty does not survive as the quantum addition has been deleted by the order of the ITAT in ITAT No.275/Del/2013 vide order dated 8.8.2017. The order of the Ld. CIT (A) is set aside and penalty is deleted.

5.0 In the final result the appeal of the assessee stands allowed.

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 →