SHRI VIJAY KUMAR GHELANI,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD-47(1), NEW DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the penalty should have been computed after giving relief to the assessee as directed by the CIT(A) regarding the sale consideration. The AO was directed to re-compute the penalty by adopting the sale proceeds at Rs. 80 lacs.
What were the facts?
The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition on account of short-term capital gains based on AIR information regarding the sale of immovable property. The AO adopted the circle rate for computation, but the CIT(A) directed the AO to use the actual sale proceeds of Rs. 80 lacs.
What were the issues?
Whether the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) should be computed on the original addition or after giving effect to the relief granted by the CIT(A) regarding the sale consideration.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘F’, NEW DELHI
Before: SH. N. K. BILLAIYA & SH. ASTHA CHANDRA
Appellant by None Respondent by Sh. Vivek Vardhan, Sr DR Date of hearing: 18/09/2023 Date of Pronouncement: 18/09/2023 ORDER PER N. K. BILLAIYA, AM:
This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the CIT(A)-16, New Delhi dated 19.03.2019 pertaining to A.Y.2009-10. 2. The grievance of the assessee read as under : “1. That on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A)-16, New Delhi has erred in confirming the penalty of Rs.15,52,470/- levied by the AO u/s. 271 (1)(c) of the IT Act in an arbitrary, uncalled for and illegal manner and as such the same is liable to be quashed.
Without prejudice to our above ground, that the Ld. CIT(A)-16, New Delhi, has not given the effect of quantum appeal decided in favour of the Appellant and as such it is prayed that suitable directions may please be issued to the Lower Authorities to give the appeal effect and reduce the penalty to Rs.66,77,800/- 3. This appeal was first listed for hearing on 15.06.2022 and after that on several occasions the appeal was listed for hearing as per order sheet entries with notice to the assessee. The assessee chose not to attend, therefore, we decided to proceed exparte. 4. The quarrel revolves around the fact that an addition of Rs.46.46 lacs was made by the AO on account of short term capital gains earned by the assessee on sale of immovable property. The addition was made on the basis of the AIR information regarding sale of property. On verification the AO came to know that the assessee has sold property at Rs. 80 lacs when the circle rate was 10756000/- . Adopting the circle rate the AO computed capital gains. 5. The assessment was challenged before the CIT(A) who directed the AO to compute the capital gains adopting Rs.80 lacs as a sale proceed. The AO levied the penalty. 6. On a thoughtful consideration to the factual matrix discussed here in above in the light of ground No.2 of the appeal we are of the considered view that the AO should have levied penalty after giving relief to the assessee as directed by the CIT(A) in respect of the sale consideration to be taken at Rs. 80 lacs instead of circle rate of Rs.10756000/-, therefore, we direct the AO to re-compute the penalty by adopting the sale proceeds at Rs. 80 alcs. With these directions the appeal is partly allowed. 7. Decision announced in the open court on 18.09.2023.
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 →- Commissioner/Additional Commissioner Of Central Tax vs. M/S INDIA Agro Exports Private LimitedKarnataka · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Rohit Medical Systems vs. Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Services Tax And Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Shivam Kumar vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 28 Oct 2026