ITO, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. AGGREGATE FINANCE & INVESTMENT PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1390/DEL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 July 2019AY 2003-043 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 upheld the CIT(A)'s order deleting the penalty. It reasoned that since the original addition was deleted, the penalty levied on that addition could not survive.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer made a substantial addition to the assessee's income and levied a penalty. The CIT(A) deleted the penalty on the grounds that the addition itself had been deleted. The revenue appealed this deletion.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can survive when the underlying addition to income has been 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 “D” NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI R. K. PANDA & SH. KULDIP SINGH

This appeal filed by the revenue is directed against the order dated 22.01.2016 of the CIT(A)-I, New Delhi relating to A.Y.2003-04. 2. The revenue in its only effective ground of appeal has challenged the order of the CIT(A) in deleting the penalty of Rs.62,50,000/- levied by the Assessing Officer u/s. 271 (1) (c) of the IT Act.

3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the Assessing Officer in the instant case completed the assessment u/s.144/147 determining the total income at Rs.1,70,04,230/-as against the returned income of ‘nil’. Subsequently the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271 (1) (c) of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) deleted the penalty on the ground that the addition made by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order has been deleted by the CIT(A) and, therefore, the penalty does not survive.

4. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal.

5.

The Ld. Counsel for the assessee, at the outset, filed a copy of the order of the Tribunal and submitted that the appeal filed by the revenue against the addition deleted by the CIT(A) has been dismissed and the order of the CIT(A) has been upheld. Since the quantum addition has been deleted, therefore, the penalty has no legs to stand and therefore the order of the CIT(A) deleting the penalty has to be upheld and the ground raised

by the revenue should be dismissed.

6. The Ld. DR on the other hand fairly conceded that the Tribunal has decided the issue in favour of the assessee and the appeal filed by the revenue against the deletion of addition by the CIT(A) has been dismissed.

7. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides and perused the material available on record. It is an admitted fact that the quantum addition made by the Assessing Officer has been deleted by the CIT(A) and on further appeal, the Tribunal has dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. Therefore, when the quantum addition has been deleted the penalty does not survive. We, therefore, uphold the order of the CIT(A) deleting the penalty so levied by the Assessing Officer. The ground raised by the revenue is accordingly dismissed.

8. In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 29.07.2019.

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 →