M/S. SHREE KAILA DEVI REAL ESTATE LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2132/DEL/2015Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 September 2018AY 2003-045 pages

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

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that since the order under Section 263, which was the basis for the assessment and penalty proceedings, had been quashed, the current appeals did not survive. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed appeals against orders related to assessment and penalty. The original assessment order was passed under Section 144/263, and the penalty was levied under Section 271(1)(c). The Tribunal had previously quashed the order passed under Section 263.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessment and penalty proceedings, initiated consequent to an order under Section 263, are valid when the Section 263 order itself is quashed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 263

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Before: SHRI R. K. PANDA & MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE

Hearing: 05.09.2018Pronounced: 07.09.2018

These two appeals are filed by the assessee against the order dated 16/2/2015 & 24/03/2015 passed by CIT(A)-XXIV, New Delhi for Assessment Year 2003-04.

2.

The grounds of appeal are as under:- ITA No. 2131/DEL/2015

1. “The Ld.CIT (A) has erred on facts and in law in not considering the facts and circumstances of the case and has further erred in rejecting the request of the appellant for condonation of delay.

2. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred on facts and in law in denying substantive justice to the appellant by dismissing the appeal of the appellant on ground of delay in filing of appeal. The appellant craves for liberty to add fresh ground(s) of appeal and also to amend, alter, modify any of the grounds of appeal.”

1.

The Ld. CIT (A) has erred on facts and in law in dismissing the appeal of the appellant against imposition of penalty under section 271(1 )(c) of the Income Tax Act. 1961.

2. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred on facts and in law in denying the opportunity of being heard to the appellant merely because the appellant could not avail of the opportunity before the assessing officer.

3. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the penalty order without looking at the merit of the additions made especially in view of the fact that the appeal on quantum addition was dismissed only on account of delay in filing of appeal.

4. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred on facts and in law in summarily dismissing the detailed submission of the appellant without ascribing any reason whatsoever and has further erred in confirming the penalty u/s 271(1 )(c) of the Income tax Act, 1961 without satisfying himself about the basic ingredients for imposition of penalty as stipulated by Explanation 1 to section 271(1 )(c) of the Act.

3.

As regards order dated 16/2/2015, the same is related to assessment order dated 11/3/2013 passed u/s 144/263 by the Assessing Officer. As regards 271(1)(c) of the Act.

4.

The Ld. AR submitted that order u/s 263 dated 23/3/2012 was subject matter of appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal vide its order dated 30/5/2016 while quashing the order u/s 263 of the Act held as under:- “15. In the instant appeal before us, the AO has conducted an enquiry. However, he has not launched a lengthy discussion on the issue of share capital but that does not lead to an inference that there has been a lack of enquiry on his part on the issue. It is clear that an order cannot be termed as erroneous unless it is not in accordance with law. If an AO, acting in accordance with law makes a certain assessment, the same cannot be branded as erroneous by the Commissioner simply because according to him the order should have been more elaborately. This section does not visualize a case of substitution of the judgment of the Commissioner for that of the AO. Therefore, it cannot be held in the instant case the AO’s order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue within the terms of section 263 of the Act. Once the issue of share capital was considered and examined by the Assessing Officer, Ld. Commissioner cannot set aside the order without recording contrary finding. This will be contrary to Section 263 of the Act. Therefore, in view of the factual matrix of the case and respectfully following the ratio of the various judicial pronouncements as discussed above, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned action of the Ld. CIT u/s 263 of the Act was patently illegal and liable to be quashed. The proceedings u/s 263 of the Act are accordingly quashed.” As the proceedings, u/s 263 of the Act have been quashed by the Tribunal, therefore, the assessment and penalty proceedings started consequent to that order, does not survive. The order of the Tribunal, however, was subject matter of appeal before the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court and order has been passed by the Hon'ble High Court dismissing the appeal on the ground of territorial jurisdiction with the permission to file appeal before the Hon'ble High Court.

6.

The Ld. AR submitted that the Department has yet not filed any appeal before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court. The Ld. AR further submitted that as per their understanding Department may not file fresh appeal before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court as the tax effect of the corresponding order u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is Rs.31,24,519/- which is much below the threshold limit for filing of appeal before the Hon'ble High Court which is Rs.50 lacs in terms of Circular No. 03 of 2018.

7.

The Ld. DR submitted that the Department has been given liberty to file appeal before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court. Therefore, these appeals may be adjourned.

8.

We have heard both the parties and perused all relevant material available on record. It is pertinent to note that as of today the situation is that order passed u/s 263 has been quashed by the Tribunal vide order dated 30/5/2016. These two appeals are passed in consequence to the order u/s 263 which is now quashed. Therefore, these two appeals does not survive. There is no appeal pending in Hon’ble High Court. Therefore, both the appeals are dismissed. The revenue is at liberty to revive these appeals in case the Hon'ble High Court given the decision in favour of the Revenue.

9.

In result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 07th September, 2018.

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 →