ITO (E), NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MEHTA CHARITABLE PRAJANALAYA TRUST, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3288/DEL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 December 2019AY 2008-094 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found parity of facts with a previous co-ordinate bench decision. Following that decision, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the deletion of penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) by the CIT(A). The assessee argued that the facts were identical to previous appeals dismissed by the Tribunal.

What were the issues?

Whether the deletion of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was justified when the exemption under Section 11 was disallowed based on a High Court judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 11

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI ‘C’ BENCH,

Before: SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, & MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, CA
For Respondent: Shri S.N. Meena, Sr. DR
Hearing: 10.12.2019Pronounced: 11.12.2019

PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER,

1.

This appeal by the Revenue is preferred against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals] - 36 New Delhi dated 29.03.2016 pertaining to assessment year 2008-09.

2.

The solitary of the grievance of the Revenue is that the ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as 'The Act'].

3.

At the very outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee stated that on identical set of facts, the Tribunal in to 3287/DEL/2016 has dismissed the appeals of the Revenue.

4.

The ld. DR could not bring any distinguishing decision in favour of the Revenue.

5.

We have carefully perused the order of the co-ordinate bench [supra]. We find force in the contention of the ld. counsel for the assessee. The facts on which penalty has been levied by the Assessing Officer are identical to the facts considered by the co-ordinate bench.

The relevant findings of the co-ordinate bench read as under:

“13. In the present case also the claim of the assessee for exemption u/s 11 has not been allowed by the AO on the basis of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court. Therefore, not allowing the claim of the assessee u/s 11 of the Act itself cannot tantamount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. We, therefore, in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid referred to case are of the confirmed view that the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A) do not require any interference. In that view of the matter, we do not see any merit in this appeal of the department.

14.

In all other appeals i.e. the facts are identical as where involved in ITA no. 3281.Del.2016 for the assessment year 1992-93 which have already adjudicated in the former part of this order, therefore, our findings given therein shall apply Mutatis Mutandis.

15.

In the result appeals filed by the department are dismissed.”

6.

On finding parity of facts, respectfully following the findings of the co-ordinate bench, we dismiss the ground of Revenue.

7.

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in is dismissed

The order is pronounced in the open court on 11.12.2019.

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 →