DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S SIEL LTD. (NOW KNOWN AS MAWANA SUGAR LTD), NEW DELHI

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “B”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER S No. Appeal No. Appellant Respondent / Cross Order appealed against Objectors 1-4 1481-1483/Del/2023 ACIT, Central Circle, Dr Rajender Prasad CIT(A)-4, Kanpur order AYs: 2014-15 to Meerut Memorial Educational dated 20.02.2023 2016-17 Society involving proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) 4-6 CO 49 -51/Del/2024 Dr Rajender Prasad DCIT, CC, Meerut CIT(A)-4, Kanpur order AYs: 2014-15 to Memorial dated 20.02.2023 2016-17 Educational involving proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) 7 -11 CO 112-116/Del/2024 Dr Rajender Prasad DCIT, CC, Meerut AYs: 2012-13 to Memorial 2016-17 Educational Dr Rajender Prasad 12- 514 - 518/Del/2024 Dr Rajender Prasad DCIT, CC, Meerut CIT(A)-3, Noida order 16 AYs : 2012-13 to Memorial dated 19.12.2023 2016-17 Educational Society involving proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) Assessee by : Shri Ankit Gupta, Adv Revenue by: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 17/04/2025 Date of pronouncement 17/04/2025

O R D E R PER BENCH The instant batch of sixteen cases pertains to the single assessee 1. herein, M/s. Dr. Rajender Prasad Memorial Educational Trust Society. All other relevant details thereof stands tabulated as above.

Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused. 2.

It emerges at the outset that there is hardly much a need for us to 3. delve deeper in the relevant identical factual matrix involved in all the instant cases. This is for the precise reason that none of the corresponding assessments framed herein u/s 148 r.w.s. 147 r.s.w 143(3) of the Act, by the ld Assessing Officer order dated 13.12.2019, had made any addition in the assessee’s hands. We make it clear in other words that although assessee is stated to be a non-filer at the first instance, the department appears to have conducted a survey in its case on 07.03.2019 followed by initiation of Section 148/ 147 proceedings. The assessee then filed its all corresponding returns in course thereof admitting varying incomes; assessment years wise, respectively, which stood duly accepted.

This being the identical clinching factual backdrop, we are of the 4. considered view that once the assessee’ corresponding returns filed in Section 148/147 proceeding stood accepted without any modification or addition therein, the department’s endeavor herein that the same ought to be attract both concealment as well as furnishing inaccurate particulars of income u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, hardly deserves to be accepted as per (2017) 393 ITR 1 (Del) PCIT Vs. Neeraj Jindal.

Faced with this situation, the Revenue vehemently argues that given 5. the fact that the assessee could not explain its failure in filing of the return u/s 139(1) of the Act, its case is covered by Mak Data Ltd Vs. CIT (2013) 358 ITR 593 (SC). We find no merit in the Revenue’s instant argument as that not an instances of getting accepted. And the said assessee had not filed any reasonable explanation u/s 271(1)(c) explanation (1) of the Act as well. Be that as it may, we are of the considered view in this factual backdrop that since the assessee’s returned income stood duly accepted the impugned penalty (ies) forming subject matter of these sixteen cases hardly deserve to be concurrent with.

We are informed at this state that the leaned CIT(A) former order 6. dated 20.02.2023 i.e. subject matter of the Revenue’s instant appeals, stood rectified in Section 154 proceedings at the Assessing Officer instance; and, therefore, he proceeded to confirm the impugned penalty, which leaving the assessee aggrieved, who has filed it’s appeals in second round. Page | 2 We are of the considered opinion in this factual backdrop that given the effect that we have already concluded in the preceding paragraphs that the impugned penalty (ies) provision itself does not get attracted in facts of the instant case, no fault in principle could be found with the CIT(A) former round order(s) deleting the same in assessee’s favour. We, thus, decline these Revenue’s appeals in 1482/Del/2023, 1483/Del/2023 on merits in very terms. The assessee’s cross objection therein in CO Nos. 49/Del/2024, 50/Del/2024, 51/Del/2024, 112/Del/2024, 113/Del/2024, 114/Del/2024, 115/Del/2024, 116/Del/2024 stand dismissed as referred infructuous.

So as the outcome of the assessee’s appeals 7. 515/Del/2024, 516/Del/2024, 517/Del/2024, 518/Del/2024 is concerned, we dismiss all these cases as referred infructuous, once we have uphold the CIT(A)’s former round order in preceding terms. Ordered accordingly.

To sum up, the Revenue’s appeals Nos. 1481/Del/202, 8. 1482/Del/2023, 1483/Del/2023 and assessee ‘s cross objection therein CO Nos. 49/Del/2024, 50/Del/2024, 51/Del/2024, 112/Del/2024, 113/Del/2024, 114/Del/2024, 115/Del/2024, 116/Del/2024 and the latter’s cases in 515/Del/2024, 516/Del/2024, 517/Del/2024, 518/Del/2024 are dismissed in above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files. Order pronounced in the open court on 17/04/2025.