KATYAYANI JEWELS P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-14(1), 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 held that the Rs. 3 lakhs was offered by the Director in his individual capacity during the survey and, considering other major additions were deleted, it cannot be treated as concealed income of the assessee company. Consequently, the levy of penalty in the hands of the company was found to be without merit.
What were the facts?
For A.Y. 2013-14, the assessment included additions for excess stock/cash and under Section 68, leading to a total income higher than returned. A penalty of Rs. 97,335/- was levied under Section 271(1)(c) on an addition of Rs. 3 lakhs, which was an amount offered as additional income by the company's Director during a survey, and this penalty was confirmed by the CIT(A). The assessee argued the penalty should be on the Director, not the company.
What were the issues?
Whether the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is justified on the assessee company when an amount was offered as additional income by its director during a survey, contending it was in his individual capacity.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI ‘H’ BENCH,
Before: SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, & MS ASTHA CHANDRA
PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:-
This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the ld. CIT(A) -5, New Delhi dated 18.04.2019 pertaining to A.Y. 2013-14.
The solitary grievance of the assessee is that the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty of Rs. 97,335/- levied by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act, for short].
Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that assessment in this case was completed on 31.03.2016 at a total income of Rs. 4,07,05,450/- against the returned income of Rs. 2,36,08,810/-.
Addition of Rs. 1,08,30,642/- was made towards excess stock and cash found during the survey and further addition of Rs. 62,66,000/- was made u/s 68 of the Act.
Assessment was challenged before the ld. CIT(A) and the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition of Rs. 3 lakhs on which separate penalty proceedings were initiated and penalty was levied at Rs. 97,335/-.
Before the ld. CIT(A), it was strongly contended that Rs. 3 lakhs was offered by the Director of the assessee company during the survey as additional income. The said income was added in hands of the company on which penalty has been levied. It was contended that since the offer was made by the Director, penalty should have been levied in his hands.
The contention of the assessee did not find any favour with the ld. CIT(A) who confirmed the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.
7, Before us, the ld. counsel for the assessee reiterated what has been stated before the ld. CIT(A).
Per contra, the ld. DR strongly supported the findings of the Assessing Officer.
We have carefully perused the orders of the authorities below. It is an undisputed fact that during the survey proceedings, the director of the assessee company offered Rs. 3 lakhs as additional income. It is true that addition has been made in the hands of the company and the assessee did not prefer any appeal, but the fact remains that survey proceedings were conducted in the premises of the assessee and the director of the assessee offered Rs. 3 lakhs as income.
The other additions made in the assessment of the assessee company around 1.70 crores have been deleted. In our considered opinion, contention of the assessee that income was offered by the director in his individual capacity cannot be brushed aside lightly and cannot be considered as concealed income of the assessee. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the levy of penalty in the hands of the company. The Assessing Officer is directed to delete the same.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee in is allowed.
The order is pronounced in the open court on .02.2024.
[ASTHA CHANDRA] [N.K. BILLAIYA] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: FEBRUARY, 2024.
VL/
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 Rentex Polymers Private Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services TaxDelhi · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Maa Shila Traders vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Ashish Enterprises vs. Assistant Commissioner Gsto Ward No. 86Delhi · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S. Bhanwal Trading And Company vs. The Union Of INDIARajasthan · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Saraswati Enterprises vs. State Of RajasthanRajasthan · 28 Oct 2026
