ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SANDHU CONTRACTORS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1772/DEL/2015Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 July 2019AY 2007-084 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 order of the CIT(A), stating that since the quantum assessment and additions were deleted, the penalty imposed could not stand. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the deletion of penalty by the CIT(A). The CIT(A) had deleted the penalty because the quantum assessment and additions were quashed.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be sustained when the underlying quantum assessment and additions have 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 ‘G’ : NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI H.S. SIDHU & SHRI B.R.R. KUMAR

PER H.S. SIDHU, JM Revenue has filed this appeal against the impugned order dated 14.1.2015 passed by Ld. CIT(A)-8, New Delhi on the following grounds:-

1.

The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the penalty imposed by the AO u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income

Tax Act, 1961 on the ground that since the quantum assessment is quashed and additions deleted penalty cannot be confirmed.

2. Since the Department has separately filed appeal against

quashing of assessment order, appeal against penalty order is preferred.

3. The appellant craves to amend, modify, alter, add or forego any ground(s) of appeal at any time before or during the hearing of this appeal.

2.

Facts narrated by the revenue authorities are not disputed by both the parties, hence, the same are not repeated here for the sake of convenience.

3.

At the time of hearing, Ld. DR relied upon the order of the AO and reiterated the contents mentioned in the grounds of appeal.

4. On the contrary, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the penalty in dispute because the quantum assessment was quashed and also the addition in dispute were deleted by the Ld. CIT(A), hence, Ld. CIT(A) has rightly deleted the penalty. Further he submitted that the Tribunal in AY 2007-08 vide order dated 12.6.2019 has dismissed the Revenue’s appeal in quantum assessment, hence, the penalty in dispute does not stand in the eyes of law and needs to be deleted by upholding the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and accordingly, the Revenue’s appeal may be dismissed.

5.

We have heard both the parties and perused the records especially the impugned order as well as the Tribunal’s order dated 12.6.2019 in Revenue’s appeal. We find that Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the penalty in 2 dispute because the quantum assessment was quashed and also the addition in dispute were deleted by the Ld. CIT(A). We further note that the Tribunal in assessee’s own case in Department’s Appeal No. 1771/Del/2015 AY 2007-08 vide order dated 12.6.2019 has dismissed the Revenue’s appeal in quantum proceedings, hence, the penalty in dispute in the present case, does not stand in the eyes of law, therefore, we uphold the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and reject the grounds raised by the Revenue.

6.

In the result, the Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.

Order pronounced on this 09th day of July, 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 →