M/S. CAPARO MARUTI LTD.,GURGAON vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that the addition on account of depreciation was already deleted by a coordinate bench. For the remaining additions, the matter was set aside to the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the basis for penalty imposition collapsed.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal concerns the assessment year 2005-06, where the Assessing Officer made additions for depreciation, additional depreciation, and fine/penalty. The CIT(A) confirmed these additions and imposed penalty under Section 271(1)(c).
What were the issues?
Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be sustained when the additions forming the basis for the penalty have been deleted or set aside.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu
ORDER Per L.P. Sahu, A.M.: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 26.02.2014 of the ld. CIT(A), LTU, New Delhi for the assessment year 2005-06.
The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income on 29.10.2005. The case was selected for scrutiny. In the scrutiny proceedings, the Assessing Officer made certain additions. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the additions made on account of depreciation of Rs.1,18,02,678/-, additional depreciation of Rs.57,94,549/- and fine & penalty of Rs.11,04,004/-. The Assessing Officer imposed penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act on the basis of ITA No. 2527/Del./2014 2 above additions. Aggrieved by penalty order, the assessee appealed before the CIT(A) and the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the penalty order. Aggrieved by this order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.
As regards the penalty based on depreciation of Rs.1,18,02,678/-, we find that the ITAT Bench-B, New Delhi in quantum appeal (ITA No. 1645 and 1784/Del./2011) for the A.Y. 2005-06, has already deleted this addition vide order dated 12.01.2017 and on the remaining additions on account of additional depreciation of Rs. 57,94,549/- and fine & penalty paid by assessee company to HSIDC of Rs.11,04,004/-, the matter was set aside and restored to the file of Assessing Officer for deciding the same afresh. Therefore, since the very basis of imposition of penalty stood collapsed, there remains no justification to sustain the penalty, based on the above additions at this stage. We, therefore, set aside the order of ld. CIT(A) and cancel the penalty imposed by the AO. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee deserves to be allowed.
More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
- Shalin Jayantbhai Desai, Vadodara vs ACIT, Circle-4(2), Vadodara Present…ITA 2569/AHD/2026[2010-11]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2010-11
- Neo Structo Construction P. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs The Pr. CIT- 3, AhmedabadITA 1216/AHD/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2370/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2369/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of Hte Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- Vandemataram Projects Private Limited vs. Raipur Development AuthorityChhattisgarh · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Surya Prakash Aroma vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 OthersAllahabad · 27 Oct 2026