SH. BALWANT KUMAR,MAHENDERGARH vs. ITO, NARNAUL

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2250/DEL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 December 2017AY 2011-122 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 held that since the additions made under Section 68 were subsequently deleted by the ITAT in quantum proceedings, the penalty based on those additions could not survive. Therefore, the penalty was cancelled.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal concerns a penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. This penalty was levied due to additions made under Section 68 on account of alleged bogus unsecured loans.

What were the issues?

Whether a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be sustained when the underlying additions under Section 68 have been deleted.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

Before: SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL, G.D. AGRAWAL & AND BEFORE SHRI & AND SMT. BEENA A. PILLAI SMT. BEENA A. PILLAISMT. BEENA A. PILLAI SMT. BEENA A. PILLAI

For Appellant: Shri Naveen Gupta, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri Atiq Ahmed, Senior DR
Hearing: 20.12.2017Pronounced: 21.12.2017

PER G.D. AGRAWAL, PER G.D. AGRAWAL, PRESIDENT PER G.D. AGRAWAL, PER G.D. AGRAWAL, PRESIDENT PRESIDENT :- PRESIDENT

1.

This appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 2011-12 is directed against the order of learned CIT(A), Faridabad dated 24th February, 2016.

2.

The only ground raised by the assessee in this appeal is against the levy of penalty of `47,380/- imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income- tax Act, 1961.

3.

At the time of hearing before us, it was pointed out by the learned counsel for the assessee that the penalty was levied as a result of certain additions made u/s 68 of the Act on account of bogus unsecured loans. It was submitted that in quantum proceedings for same assessment year, the ITAT, vide order dated 10th January, 2017 in 2 ITA-2250/Del/2016 , has deleted the additions made u/s 68 of the Act. A copy of the said order was placed on record. He, therefore, prayed that the penalty may also be deleted.

4.

Learned Senior DR relied upon the orders of authorities below.

5.

We have carefully considered the submissions of both the sides and perused the material placed before us. Since the additions itself have been deleted by the ITAT, the penalty based upon such additions cannot survive. We, therefore, cancel the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.

6.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Decision pronounced in the open Court on 21.12.2017.

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 →