SHRI NIRAJ KUMAR TIWARI,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6215/DEL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 February 2017AY 2011-123 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the AO. The AO was directed to examine the applicability of the Direct Tax Dispute Resolution Scheme, 2016, and also verify the assessee's contention regarding penalty imposition when notice is issued for both concealment and inaccurate particulars.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer (AO) imposed a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, which was upheld by the CIT(A). The assessee contended that the penalty was not sustainable due to the Direct Tax Dispute Resolution Scheme, 2016.

What were the issues?

The primary issues were the applicability of the Direct Tax Dispute Resolution Scheme, 2016, to the penalty imposed and the validity of imposing a penalty when notice is issued for both concealment and inaccurate particulars of income.

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 : SMC-I : NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI R.S. SYAL

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Sabharwal, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri F.R. Meena, Sr. DR
Hearing: 23.02.2017Pronounced: 23.02.2017

ORDER This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the CIT(A) on 20.07.2016 in relation to the assessment year 2011-12 upholding the penalty of Rs.2,77,984/- imposed by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.

2.

Shorn of unnecessary details, it is seen that the AO imposed penalty with reference to certain additions. Such penalty came to be confirmed in the first appeal. The ld. AR contended that the penalty is not sustainable because of Direct Tax Dispute Resolution Scheme, 2016 which provides that if tax and interest is paid and the amount of penalty is less than Rs.10 lac, then, no penalty could be imposed. It was claimed that the amount of tax and interest in this case, being less than the ceiling and the same having been paid, no penalty is exigible. On a specific query for going through the same, the ld. AR expressed his inability as he did not have the text of the Scheme. The ld. DR also could not produce such a Scheme.

Under these circumstances, I set aside the impugned order and remit the matter to the file of the AO for examining if such a Scheme is applicable to the facts and circumstances of the instant case. In addition, the AO is also directed to verify the assessee’s contention about non-imposition of penalty where notice u/s 271(1)(c) is issued both for concealment as well as inaccurate particulars of income.

3.

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

The order pronounced in the open court on 23.02.2017.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →