M/S TRUE ZONE BUILDWELL PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that since a coordinate bench had previously deleted the quantum addition on account of brokerage payments, the penalty levied on such additions could not survive. Therefore, the penalties were directed to be deleted.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeals challenged penalties levied by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) for assessment years 2007-08 to 2009-10. These penalties were related to additions made under Section 69C of the Income Tax Act.
What were the issues?
The primary issue was whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) could be sustained when the underlying addition was deleted by a higher appellate authority. The assessee also argued that the authorities below did not examine the substantive requirements for penalty levy.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH:
Before: SHRI K.NARASIMHA CHARY & SHRI O.P. MEENA
Date of Hearing 06.02.2019 Date of Pronouncement 06.02.2019 ORDER PER BENCH:
Challenging the orders dated 16/2/2015 in appeal numbers 463 to 465/13-14 on the file of the learned Commissioner of Income 'fax (Appeals)- 24, New Delhi (“Ld. CIT(A)”) whereunder the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the penalty levied by the learned assessing officer for the assessment years 2007-8 to 2009-10 the assessee preferred these appeals.
Brief facts of the ease are that the search and seizure operations under section 132 of the Income 'fax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) were carried out in Rajdurbar group of cases on 31/7/2008 and pursuant to the notice under section 142 (1) of the Act assessee filed their returns, insofar as these appeals are concerned, 2007-08 to 2009-10 for the years. Assessment was complete under section 1 53 A/143(3) of the Act by making an addition under section 69C of the Act. Simultaneously Ld. assessing officer initiated proceedings under section 271(1)( e ) of the Act and concluded them by order dated 26/3/2013 with the levy of penalty of Rs. 3,51,372/- for the assessment year 2007-08, Rs. 56,96,220/- for the assessment year 2008-09 and Rs. 2,57,448/-for the assessment year 2009- 10 respectively.
Assessee preferred appeals against these orders. Ld. C1T(A) by way of impugned orders dismissed the same and confirmed the levy of penalty. Hence the assessee preferred these appeals on identical grounds, stating that there is no evidence with respect to the payment of brokerage and the authorities below did not examine the substantive requirements for the levy of penalty laid down by Lxplanation 1 of section 271 (1)( c ) of the Act, by rejecting the numerous ease laws submitted by the assessee along with the proposition of law coming out from those rulings and without assigning any reason whatsoever for the same. It is further stated that there is no basis for the Ld. C1T(A) to hold that the facts and circumstances of the matter and the logic of the assessing officer with respect to the addition on account of commission payments are different for the years under consideration to the facts and circumstances for the assessment year 2006- 07.
At the outset Ld. AR submitted that in the quantum appeals preferred by the assessee against the orders of the First Appellate Authority, a coordinate Bench of this Tribunal deleted the quantum addition. 1 le produced the copy of the order dated 30/9/2018 in ITA numbers 2092 to 2094/del/2012 for assessment years 2007-08 to 2009-10. There is no dispute as to this order by the Revenue.
We have gone through the record and the order dated 30/9/201 8 in to 2094/del/2012 for the assessment years 2007-08 to 2009- 10. After discussing the matter at length, while paragraph No. 25 of the said order a coordinate Bench of this Tribunal reached a conclusion that the quantum addition made on account of payment of brokerage to various brokers for the assessment years had to be deleted. In view of this factual position and on the face of the finding of the Tribunal deleting the quantum addition, we are of the considered opinion that no penalty could survive. We, therefore, direct the Ld. assessing officer to delete the penalty in question for these three years. Grounds of appeals are allowed.
In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed.
O r d e r p r o n o u n c e d i n t h e O p e n C o u r t o n 0 6 . 0 2 . 2 0 1 9 .
More judgments on Section 69C
- Jitendrakumar Bhikhabhai Shrimali, Mehsana vs ITO Ward 1, MehsaanaITA 1290/AHD/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Sonu Jain, Agra vs ITO WD(1)(1)(2), AgraITA 671/AGR/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Mritunjay Singh, Kudra vs AO, SasaramITA 454/PAT/2026[2017-2018]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2017-2018
- Shantilal Mafaji Kachchhava, Banaskantha vs ITO WD 1 Palanpur, PalanpurITA 2256/AHD/2026[2023-24]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2023-24
- Madhusudhan Gade, Nizamabad vs ITO., Ward-1, NizamabadITA 379/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Sureshchandra Moolchand Shah vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Larsen And Toubro Limited vs. Joint Commissioner Of Central GST And Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- T C Global INDIA Private Limited vs. Principal Commissioner Of Central GST, North DelhiDelhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Kamlasana Impex Private Limited vs. Director General Of GST Intelligence (Hq) Delhi) & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Ritu Gautam Proprietor Of Ms Heritage International vs. Additional Commissioner Central Goods And Services Tax Appeals Ii Delhi & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026