GANESHA SECURITIES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that the ITAT had previously restored all three issues to the AO for fresh adjudication. Consequently, the penalty levied on these issues was deemed unsustainable.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal was against the CIT(A)'s order for AY 2006-07. The core issues involved disallowance under Section 14A, forfeiture of advance for property purchase, and notional interest on an advance.
What were the issues?
The primary issue was the sustainability of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) when the underlying additions/disallowances were restored to the AO for fresh assessment.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘C’: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI S.V. MEHROTRA, & SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG
PER CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A)-X, Delhi, dated 19/02/2014 for A.Y 2006-07 passed in first appeal No. 121/2013-14.
We have heard the arguments of both the sides and have carefully perused the relevant material placed on record on the Tribunal inter alia assessment order and order of the CIT(A). The ld. AR placing a copy of the order of the ITAT ‘C’ Bench dated 31.7.2015 passed in for A.Y 2006-07 and submitted that 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', disallowance being loss on account of forfeiture of advance paid for purchases of property at Rs. 75 lakhs and issue of addition on notional interest as advance to Shri Mahesh Kumar Sharma have been restored to the file of the AO for afresh adjudication. He, therefore, submitted that the penalty on all the three counts/issued levied by the AO cannot be held as sustainable.
The ld. counsel of the Revenue supported the orders of the authorities below. However, the ld. DR fairly accepted that in the quantum appeal the Tribunal has restored all the three issues to the file of the AO and penalty order cannot be held as sustainable. At the same time, he also contended that the AO has valid jurisdiction to initiate and impose penalty as per above appeal effect order passed by the AO. The ld. DR further submitted that he powers of the AO will not be curtailed if the additions are made and penalty is imposable on the issues as per outcome of the appeal effect re assessment order passed in pursuance to the Tribunal order.
On careful consideration of the above, we are of the view that on careful perusal of the Tribunal order dated 31.7.2015 [supra] for A.Y 2006-07 it is amply clear that all the three issues, on which penalty has been levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act have AO for afresh adjudication, This penalty order as well as impugned order of the CIT(A) do not survive and we demolish and dismiss the same. Before we part with the order, we make it clear that in the event of additions and disallowances in the appeal effect reassessment order if required the AO will not be prevented from initiating penalty proceedings as per outcome of the said order to be passed u/s 143(3)/154 of the Act.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed as indicated above.
The order is pronounced in the open court on 03.08.2016.
More judgments on Section 14A
- Blacksoil Capital Private Limited (As… vs DCIT, Circle-1(1), HyderabadITA 2217/HYD/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Hiral Construction, Mumbai vs ITO Ward 42(1)(2), MumbaiITA 8431/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- The Dy DIT (It) 1(2), Mumbai vs M/S Citi Bank N.A, MumbaiITA 4981/MUM/2007[2002-2003]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2002-2003
- M/S. Citi Bank N.A., Mumbai vs The Addl DIT (It) RG-1, MumbaiITA 4970/MUM/2007[2002-2003]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2002-2003
- M/S American Express Bank Ltd., Mumbai vs The Jt DIT (It)1(1), MumbaiITA 9414/MUM/2004[2000-2001]Status: Disposed8 Oct 2026AY 2000-2001
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Kalra Traders vs. Union Of INDIAUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Ms Isoft vs. The Commissioner State TaxUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Sita Enterprises vs. Office Of The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Capri Global Capital LTD Through Represented By Its Law Officer Mr. Varun Kaljoria vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal SecretaryMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Sri Tatiparthy Venkata Swamy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 25 Oct 2026