UJALA SALES PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that the addition of Rs. 5,00,000/-, which formed the basis for the penalty, had been set aside by a coordinate bench of the ITAT. Therefore, the penalty issue was also set aside to the AO for fresh adjudication.
What were the facts?
The assessee appealed against a penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The penalty was based on an addition of Rs. 5,00,000/- made by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A).
What were the issues?
Whether a penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) can be sustained when the underlying addition has been set aside. The issue of penalty is consequential to the quantum addition.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC-1’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. N. K. Saini
ORDER This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 24.08.2015 of ld. CIT(A)-XXII, New Delhi.
The only grievance of the assessee in this appeal relates to the confirmation of penalty levied by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
During the course of hearing the ld. Counsel for the assessee at the very outset stated that the addition of Rs.5,00,000/- on the basis of which impugned penalty was levied by the AO and sustained by the ld. CIT(A) has been set aside by the ITAT Delhi Bench ‘H’, New Delhi in assessee’s appeal for the assessment year 2003-04 in Ujala Sales Pvt. Ltd. 4701/Del/2011 vide order dated 18.04.2016 (copy of the said order was furnished). The aforesaid contention of the ld. Counsel for the assessee was not controverted.
After considering the submissions of both the parties and carefully perusing the material available on the record, it is noticed that the addition of Rs.5,00,000/- which is the basis for levying the impugned penalty by the AO has been set aside by ITAT in for the assessment year 2003-04 vide order dated 18.04.2016. Since the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is directly connected with the quantum addition which has already been set aside to the file of the AO. I, therefore, deem it appropriate to set aside this issue also back to the file of the AO to be adjudicated afresh in accordance with law after considering the outcome of the quantum addition.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. (Order Pronounced in the Court on 24/05/2016)
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 →- Mascot Constructions Co. And Another vs. The Commissioner Of Goods And Services Tax (GST) And AnotherBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Fasil Hussain Shah vs. Ut Of J And K Th Commissioner Secretary TO Government Finance Department And OthersJammu and Kashmir and Ladakh · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S. Devkinandan Traders vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Dixit Medical Agencies vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026