PITAMBAR DATT,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 51(2), NEW DELHI
In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted to settle the appeals under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Both the assessee and the revenue agreed that the appeals should be treated as withdrawn and dismissed.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed appeals against the orders of the Ld. CIT for Assessment Year 2010-11. The grounds raised pertained to the justification of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) and Section 271B.
What were the issues?
The primary issue was whether the penalties imposed were justified. However, the appeals became infructuous due to the assessee opting for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
The appellate order are not justified in the eyes of law. 1.
ITA No.- 9026 & 9027/Del/2019 Pitambar Datt
The learned CIT (Appeal) failed to appreciate the facts placed on 2. the record that it is not a case of concealment where the learned A.O. itself has estimated the income by applying the discretion rate to create the liability against the appellant.
The appellant suffered the loss and there was only one instance 3. where the assessee got the profit @ 2.3%, however, he was assessed @
4%, thus, the maximum justification have already been ended, concealment is not proved anywhere, therefore, the imposition of penalty is not justified in view of the clauses given under section 271(l)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961.
That the appellant craves his right to amend, delete or add any 4. grounds of appeal at or before the time of hearing.
ITA No.9027/Del/2019 (A.Y.2010-11)
The appellate order framed is not justified in the eyes of law. 1.
The learned CIT (Appeal) failed to appreciate the facts placed 2. on the record during the course of appellate proceedings, it is an admitted fact the appellant was not maintaining the books of accounts and the learned A.O. has imposed the penalty U/s 271A then simultaneously an action of 271B was not justified.
Where the learned A.O. has admitted the gross receipts and 3. had estimated the income by taking the same figures the imposition Page 2 of 5
ITA No.- 9026 & 9027/Del/2019 Pitambar Datt of penalty u/s 271B was not justified.
That the appellant craves his right to amend, delete or add any grounds of appeal at or before the time of hearing.
(B) At the time of hearing, the learned Authorized Representative (“Ld. AR”, for short) for the Assessee informed us that the assessee has opted to settle the aforementioned appeal under Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020 (“VSVS”, for short) and that the assessee has filed the relevant forms. He drew our attention to letter dated 16th August, 2021 from assessee’s side in Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (“ITAT”, for short) giving intimation of the same. It was also submitted by him that assessee has filed prescribed forms under VSVS; and Form-5 (to be) issued by designated authority under VSVS, is awaited and has not been received so far. In view of this, the learned AR as well as the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Departmental Representative) [“Ld. CIT(DR), for short] submitted before us that this appeal may be treated as withdrawn and may be dismissed on account of the aforesaid VSVS. After due consideration, we are of the opinion that these appeals have become infructuous on account of aforesaid VSVS, and this appeal may be treated as withdrawn on account of the aforesaid VSVS. Accordingly, this appeal having become infructuous, is treated as withdrawn and is hereby dismissed.
(B.1) Before we part, we hereby clarify, by way of abundant caution, that if for some reason the disputes under these appeals before us are not settled under ITA No.- 9026 & 9027/Del/2019 Pitambar Datt the aforesaid VSVS, then the assessee will be at liberty to approach ITAT for restoration of either or both of these appeal(s), in accordance with law.
(C) In the result, this appeal is dismissed.
This order was already pronounced orally on 23rd November, 2021 in Open Court, in the presence of representatives of both sides, after conclusion of the hearing. Now this order in writing is signed today on 23.11.2021.
More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
- Shalin Jayantbhai Desai, Vadodara vs ACIT, Circle-4(2), Vadodara Present…ITA 2569/AHD/2026[2010-11]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2010-11
- Neo Structo Construction P. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs The Pr. CIT- 3, AhmedabadITA 1216/AHD/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2370/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2369/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Biswanath Rana vs. The Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Sushama Mishra vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Saudamini Samantray vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Bhubaneswar IiOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Keshav Rice Mill, Ganjam vs. Chief Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, KatakaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Nanda Contruction PVT. LTD., Angul vs. Additional Commissioner, GST And Central Excise Commissionerate, SundergarhOrissa · 28 Oct 2026