HOLICTICS URBAN INNOVATIVES PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 10(1), DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3719/DEL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 December 2024AY 2015-162 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 observed that the discrepancy between the P&L Account and Form 26AS figures indicated a dispute over revenue recognition rather than inaccurate particulars of income. Citing CIT Vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal deleted the penalty.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against a penalty of Rs. 2,51,174/- levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The penalty was imposed due to a disallowance/addition of Rs. 8,12,857/-, representing the difference between gross receipts reported in the Profit and Loss account and those reflected in Form 26AS, which the lower authorities deemed as furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.

What were the issues?

Whether a difference between gross receipts reported in the Profit & Loss account and those in Form 26AS constitutes furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, justifying a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI

Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara

For Respondent: Shri Sahil Kumar Bansal, Sr. DR
Hearing: 24/12/2024Pronounced: 24/12/2024

O R D E R

1.

This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2015-16, arises against the order of CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi dated 10.06.2024 in case No. ITBA/NFACIS/250/2024-25/1065521685(1) in proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”).

2.

Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. It is accordingly proceeded against ex-parte.

3.

Mr. Bansal vehemently argues during the course of hearing that both the learned lower authorities have rightly levied the impugned Section 271(1)(c) penalty of Rs. 2,51,174/- related to quantum disallowance/ addition of Rs. 812857/- which represents difference between its gross receipts in Profit and Loss account of Rs. 1,17,83,370/- vis-à-vis that of Rs. 1,25,96,727/- going by the corresponding figures in Form 26AS. His case accordingly is that the assessee has rightly been held as having filed inaccurate particulars of its income u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.

4.

I have given thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s pleadings and the Revenue’s vehement contentions. I see no reason to uphold the impugned penalty as a perusal of the case file indicates that the foregoing difference between the assessee’s P&L Account vis-à-vis Form 26AS figures more involves an instance of dispute regarding revenue recognition than that of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. I accordingly, delete the impugned penalty in very terms in light of CIT Vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. reported in 322 ITR 158 (SC). Ordered accordingly.

5.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 24/12/2024.

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 →