JEESHAN AHMAD,MUZAFFARNAGAR vs. ITO, WARD- 1(2), MUZAFFARNAGAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6824/DEL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 May 2019AY 2008-093 pages

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

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that since the quantum addition, which formed the basis for the penalty, was deleted by a Coordinate Bench, the penalty could not be sustained. Therefore, the appeal was allowed on this ground.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer made an addition to the assessee's income under Section 69A for unexplained capital account balance and levied a penalty under Section 271(1)(c). The CIT(A) sustained the penalty.

What were the issues?

Whether a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be sustained when the underlying addition to income has been deleted.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘C’ NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI G.D. AGARWAL & SHRI K.NARASIMHA CHARY

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Gupta, Advocate
For Respondent: Ms NainaSoin Kapil, Sr. DR
Hearing: 03.05.2019Pronounced: 03.05.2019

PER K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JM Aggrieved by the order dated 27/8/2018 in appeal No. 05/17- 18/MZR by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Muzaffarnagar (“Ld. CIT(A)”), assessee preferred this appeal challenging the penalty sustained by the Ld. CIT(A). 2. Brief facts relevant for the disposal of this appeal are that during the assessment proceedings for the assessment year 2008-09 learned

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →