SH. OM PRAKASH TAKKAR,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, SAHARANPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2539/DEL/2014Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 May 2017AY 2009-104 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 noted that the addition, which formed the basis for the penalty, had been deleted in the quantum proceedings by a previous order of the Tribunal. Therefore, the penalty could not survive.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal concerns a penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) for the assessment year 2009-10. The penalty was based on an addition made by the Assessing Officer and upheld by the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be sustained when the underlying addition giving rise to the penalty has been deleted.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI “E” BENCH,

Before: SHRI R.K. PANDA & SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA

For Appellant: Shri Akarsh Garg, Adv
For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Sr.DR
Hearing: 02.05.2017Pronounced: 02.05.2017

PER R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:-

1.

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 30.12.2013 of the CIT(A), Muzaffarnagar relating to A.Y. 2009-10.

2.

Levy of penalty of Rs. 1,70,000/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 by the A.O and upheld by the ld. CIT(A) is the only issue raised by the assessee in the grounds of appeal.

3.

The ld. counsel for the assessee, at the outset, filed a copy of the order of the Tribunal, in assessee’s own case vide order dated 15.03.2016 for A.Y 2009-10 and submitted that the addition made by the A.O and upheld by the ld. CIT(A) has been deleted by the Tribunal. Since the very basis on which penalty has been levied does not survive, therefore, the penalty should be deleted.

4.

The ld. DR on the other hand, fairly conceded that the Tribunal has deleted the addition in the quantum proceedings which is the subject matter of penalty.

5. After hearing both the sides, we find the very basis on which the penalty was levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act does not survive in view of the order of the Tribunal deleting the addition in quantum proceedings. Therefore, penalty levied by the A.O and upheld by the ld. CIT(A) does not survive. Accordingly, the ground raised by the assessee is allowed.

5.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed Order pronounced in the open court at the time of hearing itself on 02.05.2017.

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 →