SHRI RISHABH PRAKASH JAIN,DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4625/DEL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 March 2017AY 2001-023 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 quantum reassessment order was quashed by the ITAT for non-issuance of a notice under Section 143(2), the penalty levied on the basis of that order is not leviable. Consequently, the penalty was cancelled.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 9 lakhs to the assessee's income during reassessment proceedings, leading to a penalty under Section 271(1)(c). The assessee's appeal against the penalty was dismissed by the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the validity of the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) when the underlying reassessment order was subsequently quashed due to procedural defects.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 143(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES “SMC” : DELHI

Before: SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI

Hearing: 30.04.2019Pronounced: 01.05.2019

For Assessee : Shri B.L. Gupta, Income Tax Practitioner. For Revenue : Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing : 30.04.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 01.05.2019 ORDER This appeal by Assessee has been directed against the Order of the Ld. CIT(A)-34, New Delhi, Dated 01.07.2016, for the A.Y. 2001-2002, challenging the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961.

2.

The A.O. in the penalty order noted that assessment under section 143(3)/147 of the I.T. Act was completed on 29.12.2008 at the income of Rs.9,76,280/- as against the returned income of Rs.76,280/- by making an 2 ITA.No.4625/Del./2016 Shri Rishabh Prakash Jain, Delhi. addition of Rs.9 lakhs. It is also noted that case was reopened because of the information received from Investigation Wing, Ghaziabad that assessee has received accommodation entries of bogus gift/bogus loans. In the absence of any explanation from the side of the assessee, the penalty was levied on the addition of Rs.9 lakhs. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of assessee.

3.

Earlier, appeal of assessee were dismissed for default. However, Miscellaneous Application of the assessee was allowed and appeal was re-fixed for hearing on merits.

4.

Learned Counsel for the Assessee, at the outset, submitted that quantum order have been quashed by the ITAT in appeal of assessee in ITA.No.2061/Del./2012 Dated 18.02.2019 in which the Tribunal accepted the additional ground of appeal and quashed the re-assessment order for non-issuance of notice under section 143(2) of the I.T.Act, 1961.

5.

The Ld. D.R. did not dispute the same.

3 ITA.No.4625/Del./2016 Shri Rishabh Prakash Jain, Delhi. 6. I have heard the rival submissions. Since the quantum re-assessment order have already been set aside and quashed by the Tribunal, therefore, penalty is not leviable in such circumstances. In view of the above, I set aside the Orders of the authorities below and cancel the penalty.

7.

In the result, appeal of Assessee allowed.

Order pronounced in the open Court.

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 →