ANIL GUPTA,FARIDABAD vs. ITO, FARIDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 535/DEL/2017Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2017AY 2007-083 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 additions forming the basis of the penalty were deleted, the penalty itself was not sustainable. Following the Supreme Court's decision in K. C. Builders, the Tribunal ruled that a penalty cannot survive if the underlying assessment addition is set aside.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was against a penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The penalty was based on additions made to the assessee's income. However, these additions had subsequently been deleted by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in a prior appeal.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) could be sustained when the additions on which it was based had been deleted by a higher appellate authority.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI

Before: Sh. N. K. Saini

Hearing: 17.05.2017Pronounced: 30.05.2017

ORDER This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 24.08.2015 of ld. CIT(A), Faridabad.

2.

Following grounds have been raised in this appeal: “1. The order of the ld. Commissioner Income Tax Appeals Faridabad confirming the penalty of Rs.168677 u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 does not hold good and erroneous as the relevant quantum addition has been deleted by the hon’ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.

1.

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals Faridabad erred in confirming the penalty of Rs.168677 u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

2 Anil Gupta 3. The appellant on the facts and circumstances of the case denies to be levied penalty of Rs.168677 u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

4.

The assessee craves leave to add, amend, delete, and modify any grounds of the appeal before/during the hearing of the appeal and all the above grounds are without prejudice to each other.”

3.

During the course of hearing the ld. Counsel for the assessee furnished the copy of the order dated 27/10.2016 of the Tribunal in and submitted that the addition on the basis of which impugned penalty was levied, has been deleted. The aforesaid contention of the ld. Counsel for the assessee was not controverted by the ld. DR.

4. After considering the submissions of both the parties, it appears that the addition on the basis of which penalty was levied by the AO and sustained by the ld. CIT(A) has been deleted in vide order dated 27.10.2016 by the ITAT Bench ‘A’, New Delhi. Since the addition has been deleted, so the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income- tax Act, 1961 is not leviable. On a similar issue the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K. C. Builders & Others Vs ACIT (2004) 265 ITR 562 wherein it has been held as under: “Where the additions made in the assessment order on the basis of which penalty for concealment is levied, are deleted, there remains no basis at all for levying penalty for concealment and, therefore, in such a case no penalty can survive and the penalty is liable to be 3 Anil Gupta cancelled. Ordinarily, penalty cannot stand if the assessment itself is set aside.”

5.

I, therefore, by keeping in view the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court deleted the penalty levied by the AO and sustained by the ld. CIT(A).

6.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. (Order Pronounced in the Court on 30/05/2017)

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 →