GURUKUL TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NOIDA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1607/DEL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 May 2018AY 2003-043 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The Tribunal found that the basis for levying the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was no longer valid as the related Section 263 orders were set aside. Therefore, the penalties were not sustainable.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed appeals against penalties levied under Section 271(1)(c). The penalties were based on orders passed under Section 263, which were subsequently set aside by the Tribunal. The assessee sought withdrawal of the appeals.

What were the issues?

Whether penalties under Section 271(1)(c) are sustainable when the underlying orders under Section 263, on which they were based, have been set aside.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 263

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘C’ NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI S.K. YADAV & SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI

Hearing: 24.05.2018Pronounced: 24.05.2018

PER SHRI S.K. YADAV, J.M. These appeals are preferred by the assessee against the respective orders of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (hereinafter called as the “CIT(A)”) confirming the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called as the ‘Act’).

2.

During the course of hearing, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has moved an application for the withdrawals of these appeals on the ground that these penalties are levied on account of additions made in the assessment order passed u/s 144 read with Section 263 of the Act and the order passed by the CIT(A) u/s 263 of the Act for both the assessment years i.e. 2002-03 and 2003-04 was set aside by the Tribunal, vide its order dated 25.05.2017 & 12.05.2016. Therefore, the impugned penalties are not sustainable in the eyes of law.

3.

The Ld. DR did not dispute these facts.

4.

Having carefully examined the orders of the Tribunal and the orders of the authorities below, we find that the foundation on the basis of which penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, was levied, has been eroded. Therefore, the penalties levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act are not sustainable in the eyes of law. We, accordingly, allow the withdrawal of the appeals filed by the assesses.

5.

In the result, the appeals of the assessee stand dismissed as withdrawn.

Order pronounced in the open court on 24.05.2018

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 →