Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “A”: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI H.S.SIDHU & SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI
O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. 1. This is an appeal filed by the revenue against the order of the ld CIT(A)- 1, New Delhi dated 31.10.2013 for the Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. The order of the ld CIT(A) is not correct in law and facts.
2. On the facts and the circumstances of the case the ld CIT(A) has erred in law in deleting the penalty u/s 271E of IT Act amounting to Rs. 2079547176/- imposed by the Addl. CIT.”
3. The solitary issues involved in this appeal is the deletion of the penalty u/s 271E of the Act amounting to Rs. 207954176/- imposed by the ld AO.
4. The brief facts of the case shows that appellant is an RNBC registered with the Reserve Bank of India and is engaged in business of mobilization of deposits. The assessee collected certain deposits in cash exceeding Rs. 20,000/- and therefore, the ld AO while framing assessment u/s 143(3) read with Section 142(2A) of the Act on 16.08.2012 found that the assessee has violated the provisions of section 269 SS and 269T of the Act. Therefore, the ld Add. CIT initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271E of the Act on 24.08.2010, after considering the reply of the assessee, the penalty was imposed vide order dated 28.03.2013 u/s 271E of the Act of Rs. 207954716/-. The assessee preferred an appeal before the ld CIT(A) who deleted the penalty vide order dated 31.10.2013 and therefore, the ld AO in appeal.
The ld DR supported the order of the ld AO.
The ld AR stated that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Hon'ble High Court.
We have carefully considered the rival contentions and also perused the orders of the lower authorities. On careful perusal of the order of the ld CIT(A), in 6.2 of the order where the penalty is deleted following the order of the hon’ble jurisdiction High court has held as under:- “6.2 I have considered the penalty order, the submissions of the appellant and the orders of my predecessor in appellant’s own case for AYs 1993-94, 1999-00, 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05 & 2005-06 wherein penalty imposed by Additional CIT has been deleted the on the same issue of levy of penalty u/s 27IE holding the appellant to have reasonable cause as contemplated in Section 273B. The facts of the present case are the same as in earlier years and I find no reason to differ with the view taken by my predecessor. I have also gone through the order of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of M/s Sahara India Mutual Benefit Company Limited (an associate concern) for AYs 1993-94, 1999- 00 & 2000-01. In the said order the Hon’ble Court, referring to its order dated 20.09.2012 in the appellant’s own case of penalty u/s 271D upholding the decisions of CIT(A) and Hon’ble ITAT on the ground that appellant had reasonable cause, dismissed the revenue’s appeal holding that no substantial question of law arose as there was no infirmity in the orders passed by the authorities below. The facts in that case are similar to the facts in the present case and, therefore, the ratio of Hon’ble High Court ruling in that case will be applicable to this appeal also. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Kamlakshi Finance Corp. Ltd. [AIR 1992 SC 711] and Khalid Automobiles v. Union of India [4 SCC (Suppl.) 653] that the decisions of the jurisdictional High Court and the Tribunal are binding on the income-tax authorities without any reservation. The decisions given earlier by the CIT(A) in appellant’s own case and Hon’ble High Court in a connected case are applicable on facts and in law to the present case and are binding. The two provisions u/s 269SS and 269T, and consequential penalties u/s 271D and 271E, are also pari materia. In the circumstances, I hold that appellant had reasonable cause as contemplated u/s 273B and was entitled to the exemption from levy of penalty u/s 27IE. Accordingly, these grounds of appeal are allowed and the penalty levied is cancelled.” Page | 2