SURYA JYOTI SOFTWARE PVT LTD,DELHI vs. ITO WARD-24(1), DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2219/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 December 2025AY 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 held that since the addition made by the Assessing Officer was deleted by the ITAT in a previous order, the consequential penalty order and the appellate order confirming it are set aside.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed a return declaring a loss, which was later revised. An assessment order was passed, followed by a penalty order under Section 271(1)(c). The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal against the penalty.

What were the issues?

Whether a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be sustained when the underlying addition has been deleted by a higher appellate authority.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘A’ NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI M BALAGANESH & SHRI VIMAL KUMAR

For Appellant: Shri Y K Gupta, CA
For Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Hearing: 08.12.2025Pronounced: 23.12.2025

Date of hearing 08.12.2025 Date of pronouncement 23.12.2025 ORDER

PER VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

1.

The appeal filed by the assessee is against order dated 29.03.2025 of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “Ld. AO") under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as “the Act”) arising out of penalty order dated 14.-01.2022 for assessment year 2009-10 under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act passed by the Assessing Officer/National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter referred as ‘Ld. AO").

2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income on 17-08-2009 declaring a loss of Rs.1,93,992/- for assessment year 2009-10. The return was later on revised on 14.09.2010 at a loss of Rs.2,46,797/-. The return was subjected to scrutiny. On completion of proceedings, assessment order dated 06.12.2017 under Section 263, 147, 143(3) of the Act was passed. In pursuance to assessment order dated 06.12.2017, Ld. AO passed penalty order dated 14.01.2022 under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act.

3.

Against penalty order dated 14.01.2022, the appellant/assessee filed appeal before Ld. CIT(A) which was dismissed vide order dated 29.03.2025.

4.

Being aggrieved, the appellant/applicant filed present appeal with following grounds of appeal:

1. The Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC has erred in law and facts of the case in passing order u/s 250 of Income Tax confirming the penalty u/s 271(1)(C) of Income Tax Act without considering the representation submitted by appellant on 21.12.2024 vide acknowledge no 764306461211224 and on 11.02.2025 vide acknowledge no 865929221110225 and Appeal order of Hon'ble ITAT vide its order dated 12.12.2024 order no ITA No. 4740/Del/2019.

2. The Ld. Commissioner of income tax appeal / NFAC has erred in law, facts, equity and natural justice and therefore the order passed by Ld. AO is to be quashed.

3. There is no concealment of income as assessee company had received back the loan granted to M/s Shalini Holdings Limited and the addition made has been deleted by Hon'ble ITAT vide its order dated 12.12.2024 order no ITA No. 4740/Del/2019.

4. The Ld. CIT (A)/ NFAC has erred in mentioning on page 3 of its order in point no 5 :- during the appellate proceedings, notice u/s 250 of the act was issued to the appellant on 01.12.2023 & 28.02.2025. In response to the above notice, the appellant has made no submissions. The appellant made submissions through ITBA Portal.

5. The penalty-imposed u/s 271(1)(c) may kindly be deleted as the additions made have been deleted by Hon'ble ITAT vide its order dated 12.12.2024 order no ITA No. 4740/Del/2019.

5.

Learned Authorized Representative for the appellant/assessee submitted that Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that there is no concealment of income as the assessee had received back the loan granted to M/s. Shalini Holdings Ltd. and the addition was deleted by Hon’ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal vide order dated 12.12.2024 in pages 51-57 of paper books.

6.

The Learned Departmental Representative relied on impugned order.

7.

From examination of record in light of aforesaid contentions, it is crystal clear that the addition made by the Ld. AO through order dated 06.12.2017 was deleted by ITAT vide order dated 12.12.2024 in titled as “Surya Jyoti Software Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO” pages 51-57 of paper books. Therefore, the consequential penalty order dated 14.01.2022 of Ld. AO and appellate order dated 29.03.2025 of Ld. CIT(A) are set aside. Ground of appeal

nos. 1 to 5 are allowed.

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 →