AJIT SINGH BANSAL,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO WARD 1(5), GHAZIABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3403/DEL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 November 2024AY 2008-09Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member)3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the mere confirmation of a quantum addition does not automatically attract penalty under section 271(1)(c) for concealment of income. Following the precedent set in CIT Vs. Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd., the penalty was deleted.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against an order of the CIT(A)-NFAC concerning penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) for AY 2008-09. A penalty of Rs. 5,18,399 was levied relating to an addition of Rs. 16,95,150 under section 68 for unexplained cash deposits.

What were the issues?

Whether a penalty under section 271(1)(c) can be levied solely based on the confirmation of a quantum addition under section 68, without establishing concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 68

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: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

For Appellant: Ms. Tanya, Advocate, Ms. Shivani, Advocate
Hearing: 07.11.2024Pronounced: 22.11.2024

This Revenue’s appeal for assessment year 2008-09 is directed against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)-NFAC”], Delhi’s DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024- 25/1065083893(1), dated 22.05.2024 involving proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

2.

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

3.

It emerges during the course of hearing that both the learned lower authorities have levied section 271(1)(c) penalty of Rs.5,18,399/- pertaining to quantum addition of section 68 unexplained cash deposits to the tune of Rs.16,95,150/-, made in the taxpayers’ hands in assessment framed on 03.03.2016.

4.

Both the learned Representatives vehemently reiterated the respective stance. Suffice to say, it is evident from a perusal of the case file that the assessee herein had duly sought to contest the foregoing quantum addition by taking various objections which ultimately failed to invoke the concurrence of learned lower authorities.

5.

That being the case, this tribunal is of the considered view that mere fact of the impugned quantum addition having got confirmed in assessee’s hands would not ipso facto attract concealment of and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income under section 271(1)(c) of the Act going by CIT Vs. Reliance Petro

2 | P a g e Products Pvt. Ltd., 322 ITR 158 (SC). The impugned penalty is deleted in very terms.

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 →