← Back to search

T.C. HEALTHCARE PVT LTD,MEERUT vs. ITO WARD-25(1), DELHI

PDF
ITA 3957/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 November 20253 pages

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

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTNAT MEMBER [Assessment Years:2016-17]

Hearing: 17.11.2025Pronounced: 17.11.2025

PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2016-17 arises against National Faceless Appeal Centre/Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)[in short the “CIT(A)”], New Delhi’s order dated 13.05.2025 passed in Case No. NFAC/2015-16/10125861 involving proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. Coming to the assessee’s sole substantive ground challenging both the lower authority’s action imposing section 271(1)(c) penalty(ies) amounting to Rs.4,86,860/- and 20,080/- relating to as many quantum disallowance is under the head gifts/presentation expenses and penalty paid on excise duty, respectively, it transpires at the outset during the course of hearing that the Assessing Officer had framed his assessment on 26.12.2018 to this effect which stood upheld in the CIT(A)’s lower appellate discussion. The matter then travelled to this Tribunal, wherein, the above latter issue of penalty payment on excise duty stood restricted to Rs.64,360/- than that in the earlier round amounting to Rs.1,26,696/-. 3. It is in this background that both the learned lower authorities have held the assessee to have concealed and furnished its inaccurate particulars of income to levy section 271(1)(c) penalty. The Revenue could hardly dispute that both the impugned quantum disallowances have been made after rejecting the assessee’s detailed explanation all along which (P.) Ltd. [2010] 322 ITR 158 (SC). Hon’ble Apex Court has further settled the issue that quantum and penalty are separate proceedings wherein each and every disallowance/additions made in course of former does not automatically result in invocation of the latter provision. We thus find merit in the assessee’s instant sole substantive ground to delete the impugned penalty in very terms. 4. The assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 17th November, 2025. [MANISH AGARWAL] [SATBEER SINGH GODARA] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

JUDICIAL MEMBER
Dated: 17.11.2025
f{x~{tÜ
f{x~{tÜ
f{x~{tÜ
f{x~{tÜ

T.C. HEALTHCARE PVT LTD,MEERUT vs ITO WARD-25(1), DELHI | BharatTax