Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal for AY 2012-13 challenged a penalty of Rs. 9,04,103/- levied under section 271(1)(c) by lower authorities. This penalty was imposed following a quantum addition of Rs. 29,25,900/- in her case for unexplained cash credits. The assessee had submitted all relevant supportive materials and declared the quantum addition for assessment.
Held
The Tribunal, citing CIT Vs. Reliance Petro Produces (2010) 322 ITR 158, held that a quantum addition *ipso facto* does not attract penalty under section 271(1)(c). Since the assessee had filed supportive materials and declared the addition, the impugned penalty was deleted.
Key Issues
Whether a penalty under section 271(1)(c) for unexplained cash credits can be levied solely based on a quantum addition, when the assessee has provided supportive materials and declared the income.
Sections Cited
Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘SMC’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA
Date of hearing 11.11.2024 Date of pronouncement 25.11.2024 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2012-13, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)-NFAC”] Delhi’s DIN and Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1065557939(1), dated 11.06.2024, involving proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
It emerges during the course of hearing with the able assistance coming from the Revenue side that both the learned lower authorities have levied section 271(1)(c) penalty of Rs. 9,04,103/- in her case relating to quantum addition of Rs. 29,25,900/- representing unexplained cash credits in her hands.
Learned Departmental Representative vehemently started the impugned penalty have made the subject matter of adjudication. He could hardly dispute the clinching fact that the assessee had filed all the relevant supportive materials followed by her declaration to get said quantum addition assessed and, therefore, I hereby quote CIT Vs. Reliance Petro Produces (2010) 322 ITR 158 that each and every quantum addition ipso facto does not attract section 271(1)(c) consequential penalty proceedings. The impugned penalty is hereby deleted in very terms.