SAGA TOWNSHIP PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3563/DEL/2017Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 October 2023AY 2007-08Bench: SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)4 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 noted that the quantum addition, which formed the basis for the penalty, had already been deleted by the Tribunal in a previous order. Consequently, the penalty levied on that addition was also deleted.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal arose from a penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The penalty was based on an addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO) for the Assessment Year 2007-08.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was justified when the underlying addition was deleted. The Tribunal also considered the assessee's contention that the AO had not provided a clear finding on concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars.

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 ‘G’: NEW DELHI

Hearing: 10/10/2023Pronounced: 13/10/2023

ORDER PER M. BALAGANESH AM: This appeal of the Assessee arises out of the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi,

[hereinafter referred to as ‘Ld. CIT(A)’] in Appeal No.38/2014-15 dated 30/03/2017 against the order passed by Assistant

Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-10, New Delhi

(hereinafter referred to as the ‘Ld. AO’) u/s 153A/143(3) of the M/s Saga Township Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) on 28/12/2010 for the Assessment Year 2007-08.

2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:-

“1) It is contended that the appellant has neither furnished inaccurate particulars of income nor concealed the particulars of it’s income within the meaning of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2) The lower authorities have erred in levying/confirming the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, as the AO has not given a clear finding whether the assessee has concealed the particulars of income OR has furnished inaccurate particulars of income. In the absence of specific charge, the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act are not applicable. 3) That the above grounds of appeal are independent and without prejudice to one another. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.”

3. The only effective issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in confirming the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the instant case.

4. At the outset, we find that the Bench had directed the Ld. DR on earlier occasion to produce the assessment records which was not complied by the Revenue. However, considering the fact that the quantum addition has already been deleted by this Tribunal, we deem it fit not to wait for the compliance of the order sheet entry by the revenue. We find that this Tribunal in and M/s Saga Township Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT 5190/Del/2012 for Asst. Years 2007-08 and 2008-09 dated 03/02/2020 had deleted the addition made in the sum of Rs.45,49,996/-. We find from the penalty order that concealment penalty has been levied by the Ld. AO only for this addition. Once the quantum addition has been deleted, the penalty would have no legs to stand in the eyes of law and accordingly deleted.

6.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 13th October, 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 →