GOEL EXIM INDIA PRIVATE LTD.,DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-28, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 563/DEL/2022Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 November 2023AY 2016-17Bench: SH. N. K. BILLAIYA (Accountant Member), MS. ASTHA CHANDRA (Judicial Member)3 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 enhancement made by the CIT(A) which formed the basis for the penalty was deleted by a coordinate bench, the penalty levied does not have a valid foundation and must be deleted.

What were the facts?

The assessee's returned loss was assessed at a lower loss by the Assessing Officer, leading to a penalty. The assessee appealed against the confirmation of this penalty by the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be sustained when the assessment order on which it is based has been substantially altered by deleting the enhancement made by the CIT(A).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

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

Before: SH. N. K. BILLAIYA & MS. ASTHA CHANDRA

Hearing: 02/11/2023Pronounced: 02/11/2023

BEFORE SH. N. K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2016-17 Goel Exim India Private ACIT Limited Central Circle-28 4th Shop No.403, Floor, Vs. Delhi 2633-2634, 4th Floor, Bank Street, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005 PAN No.AAACG1799B (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Sh. Anup Mehta, CA Respondent by Sh. Sh. Vivek Upadhyay, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 02/11/2023 Date of Pronouncement: 02/11/2023 ORDER

PER N. K. BILLAIYA, AM:

1.

This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the CIT(A)-29, New Delhi dated 19.08.2021 pertaining to A.Y. 2016-17.

2.

The sum and substance of the grievance of the assessee is that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the levy of penalty u/s. 271 (1) (c) of the Act.

3.

The roots for the levy of penalty lie in the assessment order dated 06.12.2018 framed u/s.143(3) of the Act wherein the returned loss of Rs.51545351/- was assessed at a loss of Rs.15297900/-.

4.

The quarrel travelled upto the Tribunal and this Tribunal in vide order dated 22.09.2023 has deleted the enhancement done by the CIT(A). The relevant findings of the coordinate bench read as under :- “14. Ld. AR has also relied judgments in Toffee Agricultural Farms Pvt. Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer 141 taxmann.com 429 (ii) Hari Mohan Sharma v. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax 110 taxmann.com 119 in support of the contention that the Ld. CIT(A) cannot change the provisions of law qua the item of which assessment was made. Since in the case in hand the Appellate Authority has made enhancement in the assessment by discovering a new source of income, not considered by the Assessing Officer in the order appealed against the ground as raised deserves to be allowed. 15. In the light of aforesaid determination of the grounds, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed and that of assessee is allowed, with consequences to follow as per the grounds determined.” 5. Since the foundation has been removed the penalty so levied does not have legs to stand. The AO is directed to delete the penalty.

6.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

7.

Order pronounced in the open court in the presence of both the parties on 02.11.2023.

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 →