SAI LUBRICANTS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5478/DEL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 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 if the original addition on which a penalty was levied is deleted, there is no basis for levying the penalty. Therefore, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not leviable.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against an order of the CIT(A). The Assessing Officer (AO) had initially made an addition, leading to a penalty under Section 271(1)(c). However, this addition was subsequently deleted by the AO in compliance with an ITAT order.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be sustained when the addition forming the basis of 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

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: 15.05.2017Pronounced: 22.05.2017

ORDER This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 07.07.2016 of ld. CIT(A)-VIII, New Delhi.

2.

Following grounds have been raised in this appeal: “1. That the order of Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous in facts and in law and is based on extraneous consideration and against the provision of the Act.

1.

2. That the addition made by the Assessing Officer against which penalty was imposed has been reversed by Ld. Assessing Officer vide order dated 22-03-2016 in compliance of order of Hon'ble ITAT vide order No. 347/Del/2013 dated 22-03-2016. After deletion of addition the quantum of penalty will be reduced to NIL.

2 Sai Lubricants Pvt. Ltd.

3. That the Ld. C1T (A) erred in passing ex-parte order particularly where no notice was served upon the appellant.

4.

The appellant craves leave or reserving the right to amend, modify, alter, add or forgo any ground(s) of appeal at any time before or during the hearing of this appeal.”

3.

Nobody was present on behalf of the assessee neither any adjournment was sought. We, therefore, proceeded to decide the issue on merit after hearing the ld. DR. During the course of hearing the ld. DR was fair enough to concede that the addition on the basis of which the impugned penalty was levied by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, now has been deleted.

4. I have considered the submissions of the ld. DR and perused the material available on the record. In the present case, on perusing the assessment order dated 22.03.2016 passed by the AO (copy of which is placed at page no. 14 of the assessee’s paper book), it is noticed that the AO has accepted the returned income. Now, it is clear that the addition on the basis of which the impugned penalty was levied is not in existence after giving effect to the order of the ITAT and when the addition on the basis of which the penalty was levied by the AO and sustained by the ld. CIT(A) is not in existence, no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is leviable.

3 Sai Lubricants Pvt. Ltd. 5. On a similar issue the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K.C Builders Vs ACIT reported at 265 ITR 562 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 cancelled.” 6. In view of the above, the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 levied by the AO and sustained by the ld. CIT(A) is deleted.

7.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. (Order Pronounced in the Court on 22/05/2017)

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 →