SH. VIJAY KUMAR ARORA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6614/DEL/2013Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 July 2018AY 2009-105 pages

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

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal followed a coordinate bench's decision where a similar penalty was deleted. The Tribunal found parity of facts and circumstances and directed the deletion of the penalty.

What were the facts?

A search action was conducted in the Dawat Group of cases, including the assessee. Subsequently, a penalty was levied under Section 271AAA of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which the assessee appealed.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the penalty levied under Section 271AAA was justified, especially in light of previous Tribunal decisions on similar facts.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271AAA,Section 132,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI ‘D’ BENCH,

Before: SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, & SHRI KULDIP SINGH

For Appellant: Ms Ananya Kapoor, Adv
Hearing: 16.07.2018Pronounced: 18.07.2018

PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER,

1.

This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XXXIII, New Delhi dated 02.08.2013 pertaining to A.Y 2009-10.

2.

The sum and substance of the grievance of the assessee is that the CIT(A) erred in upholding the penalty of Rs. 53,17,370/- levied by the AO u/s 271AAA of the I.T. Act, 1961.

3.

Roots for levy of penalty lie in the assessment order framed u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 31.12.2010. A search action u/s 132 of the Act was carried out in the Dawat Group of cases which included the assessee alongwith Shri Ashwin Arora, Shri Surinder Arora and Shri Ashok Arora.

4.

At the very outset, the ld. AR pointed out that a similar penalty levied in the case of Ashwin Arora and Shri Ashok Arora has been deleted by the Tribunal. The counsel supplied copy of the order of the Tribunal.

5.

Per contra, the ld. DR could not bring any distinguishing decision in favour of the Revenue.

6.

We have carefully considered the orders of the authorities below. We find force in the contention of the ld. Counsel. On similar set of facts, penalty was levied u/s 271AAA of the Act in the case of Shri

3 Ashwin Arora and Shri Ashok Arora. The Tribunal in and 842/DEL/2014 has deleted the levy of penalty from the respective hands. On finding parity of facts and circumstances for levy of penalty u/s 271AAA of the Act, we do not find any reason not to follow the following findings of the coordinate bench of the Tribunal which reads as under:

“The Id DR has pointed out that the manner of earning of the surrendered income has not been disclosed by the assessee whereas the assessee by letter dated 21.01.2010 has disclosed the manner of earning the said income by way of trading in commodities and real estate and also stated this fact is substantiated from the seized material. Moreover this factual position is not denied by the AO and this is not the basis for imposing the penalty. In that view of the matter and in view of such facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) is not justified in confirming the action of the AO and accordingly, we direct the AO to delete the penalty imposed under section 271 AAA of the Act. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.”

7.

Respectfully following the findings of the Tribunal, the AO is directed to delete the levy of penalty u/s 271AAA of the Act.

8.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in is allowed.

The order is pronounced in the open court on 18.07.2018.

More judgments on Section 271AAA

All 606 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271AAA →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →