MEERUT DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, MEERUT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4426/DEL/2014Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2017AY 2003-044 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that since the original additions were deleted, the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) could not survive. Therefore, the penalty was directed to be deleted.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The additions on which the penalty was based had already been deleted by the Tribunal in a previous order.

What were the issues?

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

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 BENCHES: “E” NEW DELHI ]

Before: SHRI I. C. SUDHIR & SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI

For Appellant: Shri Mukul Gupta, Adv
For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Sr.D.R
Hearing: 31.05.2017Pronounced: 31.05.2017

Assessee by : Shri Mukul Gupta, Adv., Department by : Shri Rajesh Kumar, Sr.D.R. Date of Hearing : 31.05.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 31.05.2017 O R D E R PER I. C. SUDHIR, J.M. :

In these appeals the assessee has questioned levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, upheld by the ld. CIT.

2.

At the outset of hearing, the ld. AR pointed out that the very subject matter of the levy of penalty i.e. the very additions made in the assessment years under consideration against the assessee have already been deleted by the Tribunal in the case of present assessee itself vide order dated 29.09.2016 in to 5457/Del/2010 [assessment years 2003-04 to 2005-06, a copy of which has been made available to the Bench with copy to other side].

3.

In view of above development, we hold that penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act in question does not survive. The same is accordingly directed to be deleted. The grounds of the appeal questioning the action of the ld. CIT (A) in sustaining the penalty are thus allowed.

4.

In result, appeals are allowed.

5.

The order is pronounced in the Open Court on : 31.05.2017.

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 →