ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. MAGNUM VENTURES LTD., NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 313/DEL/2014Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 March 2016AY 2007-083 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the income tax demand for the relevant assessment year had already been deleted by a previous ITAT order. Therefore, the revenue's ground of appeal regarding the penalty no longer survived.

What were the facts?

The revenue appealed against the deletion of penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) by the Assessing Officer. The assessee did not appear, but filed written submissions.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can survive when the underlying addition/demand has been deleted.

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

For Appellant: Shri P. Damkanunja, Sr. DR
Hearing: 07.01.2016

PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

1.

This appeal filed by the revenue is directed against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)- XXXII, New Delhi dated 28.10.2013 for assessment year 2007-08 on the following ground of appeal:-

“1. The CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in deleting the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) amounting to Rs. 26,40,313/-.”

2.

None appeared for the assessee, however, written submissions have been filed which are available on record.

3.

After considering the submissions of the ld. D.R. and the material on record, it is noticed that the income tax demand for assessment year 2007-08 has already been deleted by ITAT Delhi Bench ‘E’ vide order dated 14th June 2013 in the case of the assessee in and in the case of the Revenue in I.T.A. No. 1227/Del/2011.

4.

In view of our above order wherein the entire addition made by the Assessing Officer has been deleted, the ground raised by the revenue does not survive and we dismiss the same.

5.

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 22nd of March, 2016.

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 →