Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed two appeals against the orders of the CIT(A) for assessment years 2015-16 and 2016-17. These appeals involved proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, concerning penalties levied on additions made on a protective basis.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer first assessed the assessee on a 'protective' basis and then recommended a 'substantive' assessment. The Tribunal, citing Lalji Haridas Vs. ITO, held that a quantum assessment on a protective basis followed by a substantive one is not sustainable in law.
Key Issues
Validity of penalties levied under Section 271(1)(c) when additions were made on a protective basis and subsequently a substantive assessment was recommended.
Sections Cited
271(1)(c)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA
Date of hearing 09.02.2026 Date of pronouncement 09.02.2026 ORDER These assessee’s twin appeals & 3345/Del/2024 for assessment years 2015-16 and 2016-17, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-29 [in short, the “CIT(A)”], New Delhi’s orders, both dated 22.05.2024 passed in case nos. CIT(A), Delhi-29 10586/2014-15 and 10952/2015-16, involving proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), respectively. Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
It transpires during the course of hearing with the able assistance coming from both the parties that the learned lower appellate authorities have levied section 271(1)(c) penalties; involving varying sums, assessment year-wise, respectively, regarding the corresponding quantum additions of accommodation entry commission made on “protective” basis in the assessments itself.
This being the clinching factual position, the Revenue could hardly dispute that the learned Assessing officer’s identical quantum findings had first assessed the assessee on “protective” basis and then recommended the “substantive” assessment to be framed in the appropriate cases. This tribunal is of the considered view in light of Lalji Haridas Vs. ITO (1961) 43 ITR 387 (SC). that such a course of even quantum assessment on protective basis first followed by the substantive one itself is not sustainable in law. Be that as it may, the fact however remains that the assessee/appellant is aggrieved against penalty proceeding. Both these impugned penalties are hereby deleted in very terms.