DCIT, ROHTAK vs. M/S. JAT EDUCATION SOCIETY, ROHTAK

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1551/DEL/2014Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 February 2016AY 2007-083 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the penalty. This was because the addition on which the penalty was based had already been deleted by the Tribunal, and the assessee had disclosed all facts to the AO.

What were the facts?

The revenue appealed against the deletion of a penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The penalty was related to an addition that was subsequently deleted by the Tribunal.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be sustained when the underlying addition has been deleted. Whether the assessee had made full disclosure of income and facts.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 10(23C)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘D’, NEW DELHI

Before: Shri I.C.Sudhir & Shri L.P.Sahu

Hearing: 23/02/2016Pronounced: 24.02.2016

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘D’, NEW DELHI Before Shri I.C.Sudhir, Judicial Member And Shri L.P.Sahu, Accountant Member DCIT Vs Jat Education Society Rohtak Circle Delhi Road Rohtak Rohtak (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAAJJ0176A Assessee by : Sh. Piyush K. Kamal, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Shryan Gotru , Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 23/02/2016 Date of Pronouncement : 24.02.2016 ORDER Per I.C.Sudhir, JM:

The revenue has questioned action of the ld. CIT(A) whereby he has deleted the penalty of Rs. 28,56,525/- levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.

2.

Heard and considered the arguments advanced by the party.

3.

Having gone through the orders of the authorities below, we find that the ld. CIT(A) has deleted the penalty in question on two counts. Firstly, the addition which remained subject matter of the penalty in question has already been deleted by the Tribunal by holding that the assessee was eligible for the claimed exemption u/s 10(23c) of the Act and .Del.2014 2 Jat Education Society secondly that the assessee had disclosed the entire income and the facts before the AO and the addition was made by disallowing the exemption claimed under the above said provisions of the Act (which has now been allowed by the ITAT vide order dated 19.4.2013 in ITA No. 2543.Del.2011). We thus do not find infirmity in the first appellate order. The same is upheld. The ground is accordingly rejected.

4.

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed. (Order Pronounced in the Court on 24/02/2016)

Sd/- Sd/- (L.P.Sahu) (I.C.Sudhir) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 24 /02/2015 *Binita* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5.DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR .Del.2014 3 Jat Education Society

Date Initial 1. Draft dictated on 23/02/2016 2. Draft placed before author 23/02/2016 3. Draft proposed & placed before the second member 4. Draft discussed/approved by Second Member. 5. Approved Draft comes to the Sr.PS/PS 6. Kept for pronouncement on 7. File sent to the Bench Clerk 8. Date on which file goes to the AR 9. Date on which file goes to the Head Clerk. 10. Date of dispatch of Order.

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 →