SCAN HOLDINGS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-22(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 noted that the additions leading to the penalty had been deleted by a previous order. Consequently, the impugned penalties were directed to be deleted.
What were the facts?
The assessee appealed against penalties levied under Section 271(1)(c) for assessment years 2007-08 and 2012-13. The penalties were upheld by the CIT(A).
What were the issues?
The primary issue was whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) could be sustained when the additions forming the basis of the penalty were deleted.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI , ‘FRIDAY’ BENCH NEW DELHI
Before: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.P. BHATT & HON’BLE G.S. PANNU
Appellant by : Shri S. Krishnan & Shri V. Raja Kumar, Advocate Respondent by : Shri P.S. Gautam, Sr. DR Date of hearing : 21/02/2020 Date of pronouncement : 21/02/2020 ORDER PER MR. JUSTICE, P.P. BHATT, These two appeals filed by the assessee are against separate orders passed by CIT(A)-8, New Delhi, both dated 02/05/2009, relating to assessment years 2007-08 and 2012-13, against penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).
In these appeals, the solitary grievance of the assessee is arising from the action of the Assessing Officer in imposing penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, amounting to Rs.33,600/- and Rs.64,800/- for assessment years 2007- 08 and 2012-13 respectively, which have since been upheld by the CIT(A).
At the time of hearing, it was a common ground between the parties that the additions which have resulted in the imposing of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act has since been deleted by the Tribunal vide its order in & 1464/Del/2017, dated 07/02/2020 for assessment years 2007-08 and 2012-13 respectively. As consequent of the above factual matrix, the impugned penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") here is by directed to be deleted in both the captioned years. 4. Accordingly, the appeals of the assessee are allowed.
Above decision was pronounced in the open court in the presence of the both the parties at the conclusion of the hearing on 21/02/2020.
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 →- M/S.Ishwar Chandra Barik, Keonjhar vs. Commissioner(Appeal), GST, Central Excise And Customs, BhubaneswarOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- M/S.Surveillance System, Sambalpur vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST Odisha , CT And GST Commissionerate , Cuttack OdishaOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- M/S.Himansu Palei vs. Assistant Commissioner Central GST CBIC Keonjhar Division, KeonjharOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- M/S. Access Worldwide Cargo vs. The Commissioner Of CustomsKarnataka · 3 Nov 2026
- M/S Greenlam Industries LTD And Another vs. The UOI And OthersHimachal Pradesh · 3 Nov 2026