ACIT, CIRCLE- 27(1), NEW DELHI vs. U K PAINTS INDIA PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 904/DEL/2020Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 August 2023AY 2007-084 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that since the quantum additions, on which the penalty was based, were deleted by a prior order of the Tribunal, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) would have no basis. Therefore, the penalty was directed to be deleted.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed appeals against the deletion of penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) by the CIT(A). The penalty was related to quantum additions made by the AO. The assessee's appeals for the quantum additions were allowed by the Tribunal.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is leviable when the underlying quantum addition has been deleted by a higher appellate authority.

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 ‘H’: NEW DELHI

For Appellant: Mr. R.K. Kapoor, CA
For Respondent: Ms. Meenakshi J. Goswami
Hearing: 31/07/2023Pronounced: 17/08/2023

ORDER PER M. BALAGANESH AM: Both the appeals filed by Revenue arises out of the common

1.

order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-28, New Delhi, [hereinafter referred to as ‘Ld. CIT(A)’] in Appeal Nos.31/18-19/1059, 30/18-19/1058, 32/18-19/1060 dated

15/10/2019 against the penalty order passed by Assistant & 904/Del/2020 ACIT vs. U.K. Paints India Pvt. Ltd. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-27(1), New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Ld. AO’) u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act,

1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) on 29/03/2018.

2.

The common grounds raised by the Revenue in both appeals except variance of figures.

“1. “Whether on facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the penalty of Rs.81,03,423/- levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.”

2. “Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in holding that the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is not leviable, if correct limb has not been marked in the notice, even though it is not a statutory notice.”

3. “Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in holding that AO cannot levy penalty on the quantum recalculated by the Ld. CIT(A), even though the issue is same and the Ld.CIT(A) has upheld the merit of addition.

3. “The appellant craves, leave or reserving the right to amend, modify, alter, add or forego any ground(s) of appeal at any time before or during the hearing of this appeal.”

3.

The identical issues are involved in both the appeals, hence, they are taken up together and disposed off by this common order for the sake of convenience.

4.

The only identical issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the penalty levied & 904/Del/2020 ACIT vs. U.K. Paints India Pvt. Ltd. u/s 271(1)(c) of the act in the facts and circumstances of the instant case.

5. At the outset, both the parties agreed that the quantum addition for which penalty has been levied, has been deleted by the order of this Tribunal for Asst. Years 2007-08 to 2013-14 vide its order dated 20.04.2020. We have gone through the quantum appellate order and we find that the Tribunal had elaborately dealt with all the grounds and had ultimately concluded that all the appeals of the assessee are allowed, all the cross objections of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes and all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed. Since, the quantum additions were deleted, the concealment of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act would have no legs to stand. Hence, the penalty for both the years are hereby direct to be deleted.

5.

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 17th August, 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 →