SH. GURCHARAN SINGH,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3445/DEL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 April 2017AY 2010-112 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 on which the penalty was based had been deleted in a prior order. Therefore, the penalty order was no longer sustainable.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against a penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The penalty was confirmed by the CIT(A) based on an addition made by the Assessing Officer.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) could survive when the underlying addition was deleted. The Tribunal also considered the factual verification of cash withdrawals from a bank account.

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 BENCH “SMC”, NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI S.V. MEHROTRA

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Goel, CA
For Respondent: Ms. Bedobani, Sr.DR

O R D E R PER S.V. MEHROTRA, V.P. :

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 25.10.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, New Delhi, upholding the levy of penalty passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), relating to assessment year 2010-11.

2.

At the outset, ld. counsel for the assessee referred to the Tribunal’s order dated 22.02.2017 and pointed out that the addition has been deleted and, therefore, penalty order does not survive.

3.

I have considered the submissions of both the parties and find that the Tribunal in para 4 has observed as under :-

“4. I have heard the parties and perused the relevant material on record. The ld. AR did not dispute any of the figures taken by the AO in the above calculation except the amount of total cash withdrawals from the above bank taken by the AO at Rs.28,14,780/-. The ld. AR submitted that the AO went wrong in adopting this figure as against the correct figure of Rs.41,26,970/-. This was sought to be fortified by placing on record certain details of cash deposits and withdrawals from the bank account. This factual aspect needs verification at the end of the AO. In view of this, I am of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would meet adequately if the impugned order on this score is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of AO. I order accordingly and direct him to verify the figure of total cash withdrawals from the bank and substitute the correct figure with the amount of Rs.28,14,780/- and, thereafter, determine undisclosed income, if any, from the calculation made by him.”

4.

Therefore, ld. CIT(A)’s order confirming the penalty needs to be set- aside as it has no legs to stand. However, the Assessing Officer would be free to take action in accordance with law after giving effect to Tribunal’s order.

5.

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed in terms of aforementioned observations. Order pronounced in the open court on this 12th day of April, 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 →