NOIDA TOLL BRIDGE COMPANY LTD.,NOIDA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-18(2), NOIDA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 219/DEL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 September 2024AY 2012-13Bench: SH. PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)5 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 penalty was consequential to the additions, and those additions were deleted, the penalty orders would not sustain. Therefore, the penalty orders were quashed.

What were the facts?

The assessee challenged penalty orders under Section 271(1)(c) which were consequential to assessment orders. A co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal had previously deleted the quantum additions made in the assessment orders.

What were the issues?

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

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘E’ NEW DELHI

Before: SH. PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA & SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S.

For Appellant: Ms. Pallavi, & Sh. Jeetan Nagpal, DR by:
Hearing: 04.09.2024Pronounced: 11.09.2024

Heard together (6 matters)

I.T.A. No. 219/DEL/2019
I.T.A. No. 220/DEL/2019
I.T.A. No. 221/DEL/2019
S.A No. 318/Del/2019
S.A No. 319/Del/2019
S.A No. 320/Del/2019

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

by the assessee against the common order dated 27/09/2018 passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, [“Ld. CIT(A)”, for short], Noida for Assessment Years 2012-13 to 2014-15 respectively.

2.

The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that in all the above Appeals, the assessee challenged orders of the CIT(A), wherein the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the orders of the penalty passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act 1961 (‘Act’ for short) for furnishing inaccurate particulars and the said penalty has been imposed consequence to the assessment orders passed u/s 143(3) of the Bench of the Tribunal in 4419/Del/2018 and 4420/Del/2018 (for A.Y 2012-13 to 2014-15) vide order dated 21/08/2024 in Assessee’s own case, deleted the quantum addition.

Therefore, submitted that since the order of penalty is consequential to the penalty order, in view of deletion of the addition, the order of the penalty will not sustain, therefore, sought for allowing the appeal.

3.

Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative has not disputed the submission of the Assessee's Representative, however, relied on the orders of the Lower Authorities and sought for dismissal of the Appeal.

4.

We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. Considering the fact that the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the quantum Appeal, deleted the additions made against the assessee, the order of the penalty proceedings being consequential to the said additions, will not hereby quashed.

5.

In the result, All the Appeals filed by the assessee are allowed.

6.

Since we have allowed the captioned Appeals, the Stay Petitions filed along with the appeal rendered in-fructuous.

Order pronounced in the open court on 11th September, 2024.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →