VRINDA SALES P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-26(4), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5569/DEL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 February 2020AY 2010-112 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal found no merit in the penalty levied for non-compliance. However, it restricted the penalty amount from Rs. 30,000 to Rs. 10,000.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was against the penalty levied for non-compliance with notices issued under sections 142(1)/143(2) of the Income-tax Act. The penalty was upheld by the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the validity and quantum of penalty imposed for non-compliance with statutory notices during the assessment proceedings.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 271(1)(b),Section 142(1),Section 143(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘S.M.C’, NEW DELHI

Before: MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA

For Appellant: Ms. Surbhi Goyal, CA
Hearing: 16.01.2020Pronounced: 21.02.2020

आदेश / ORDER The present appeal filed by assessee is against order of CIT(A)-9, New Delhi dated 18.04.2019 relating to assessment year 2010-11 against order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’).

2.

The Ld.AR for the assessee moved an application for adjournment. However, because of smallness of the issue, the adjournment moved by the Ld.AR for the assessee was refused.

3.

The issue raised in the present appeal is against the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act at Rs.30,000/-. The reason for the aforesaid levy of penalty was non-compliance to three notices issued u/s 142(1)/143(2) of the Act. The perusal of the details filed in the assessment order reflect that the first default was of the notice dated 10.07.2017 and the second default was on account of notices issued u/s 143(2) and 142(1), both dated 06.11.2017. The said levy of penalty has been upheld by the CIT(A) against which the assessee is in appeal. In the totality of the facts and circumstances, there is no merit in the aforesaid levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act at Rs.30,000/-; the same is restricted to Rs.10,000/-. Thus, grounds raised by the assessee are partly allowed.

4.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on 21st February, 2020.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →