DHARA MOTOR FINANCE LIMITED,MEERUT vs. DCIT, RANGE, BIJNOR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2942/DEL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 November 2024AY 2013-14Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member)3 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 found no reason to uphold the penalty, noting that the assessee had filed all relevant details and supportive evidence. Citing CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal reiterated that quantum and penalty proceedings are parallel, and an addition/disallowance in the former does not automatically attract penalty. Therefore, the impugned penalty was deleted.

What were the facts?

The assessee was levied a penalty under section 271(1)(c) of Rs. 9,52,493/- on an alleged concealed income of Rs. 30,82,500/-, representing a quantum addition for unexplained cash credits. The lower authorities held that the assessee failed to prove the genuineness and creditworthiness of these cash credits.

What were the issues?

Whether a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for concealed income arising from unexplained cash credits is justified when the assessee provides relevant details and evidence, considering that quantum addition does not automatically lead to penalty.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 250

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 Respondent: Shri Yogesh Sharma, Sr. DR
Hearing: 05.11.2024Pronounced: 18.11.2024

Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1064976413(1), dated 17.05.2024, in case no. 1961, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’.

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

2.

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. 9,52,493/- pertaining to alleged concealed income of Rs. 30,82,500/- representing quantum addition of unexplained cash credits.

3.

Learned DR invited my attention to the Assessing Officer’s assessment order dated 1.12.2015 that the assessee could not prove genuineness/ creditworthiness of the said cash credits which resulted in the impugned penalty in its hands.

4.

I have given thoughtful consideration to the Revenue’s foregoing vehement contention and find no reason to accept the same. This is for the precise reason that the assessee had filed all the relevant details and supportive evidence which ultimately failed to evoke the assessing authority’s concurrence. I quote CIT v.

Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. 2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC) that quantum and penalty proceedings are parallel proceedings wherein each and every addition/disallowance made in the course of former does not ipso facto attract the accordingly.

5.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed.

Order pronounced in open court on 18.11.2024.

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 →