THE STATE TRADING CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2974/DEL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 February 2018AY 2009-103 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 issue of disallowance of provision for leave encashment was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, the penalty levied on this ground did not survive and was liable to be deleted. The Assessing Officer was given liberty to initiate penalty proceedings later if warranted.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal concerned a penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) for disallowance of provision for leave encashment. The assessee argued that the penalty should be deleted as the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be sustained when the primary addition on which it is based has been restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

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 BENCH “E”, NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI R. K. PANDA & SMT. BEENA A. PILLAI

For Appellant: Shri Kamal Kishan Jetaley, Adv, Shri Rishabh Jetaley, Adv
For Respondent: Shri S.R. Senapati, Sr.DR

O R D E R

PER R. K. PANDA, AM :

1.

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 31.03.2016 of the CIT(A)- 33, New Delhi relating to assessment year 2009-10.

2.

Although a number of grounds have been raised by the assessee, they all relate to the order of the ld. CIT(A) in confirming the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 by the Assessing Officer on account of disallowance of provision for leave encashment. 3. The ld. counsel for the assessee at the outset filed a copy of the order of the Tribunal and submitted that the issue has been restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication as per para 7 of the order. Therefore, the very basis of levy of penalty does not survive and the penalty so levied should be deleted.

4.

The ld. DR while conceding the above argument of the ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that a direction may be given to the Assessing Officer to initiate the penalty proceedings after the order is passed in the light of the decision of the Tribunal.

5.

After hearing both the sides, we find the penalty has been sustained by the ld. CIT(A) on the addition made on account of disallowance of provision for leave encashment. From the order of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case in order dated 21.01.2016, we find the Tribunal at para 7 of the order has restored the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication of the issue. Therefore, penalty at present does not survive and the same is liable to be deleted. However, the Assessing Officer is at liberty to initiate penalty proceedings after completion of the assessment on the basis of the direction of the Tribunal. In view of the above, the grounds raised

by the assessee are allowed.

6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on this 27th February, 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 →