ACIT, EXEMPTION, GHAZIABAD vs. MUSSOORIE DEHRADUN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, DEHRADUN

PDF · subscribers
ITA 102/DEL/2022Status: HeardITAT Delhi26 July 2023AY 2013-143 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the Revenue's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that since the quantum additions were confirmed by higher authorities, the deletion of penalty by the CIT(A) was unjustified. Consequently, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was confirmed.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order deleting the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c). The original addition made by the AO was confirmed by the CIT(A) and the ITAT, and subsequently affirmed by the Uttarakhand High Court.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the penalty when the underlying additions were confirmed by appellate authorities. The applicability of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) in light of confirmed additions.

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

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

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

For Appellant: Ms. Smita Singh, Sr DR
Hearing: 26/07/2023Pronounced: 26/07/2023

ORDER PER N. K. BILLAIYA, AM:

This appeal by the revenue is preferred against the order dated 22.11.2021 by NFAC, Delhi pertaining to A.Y. 2013-14. 2. The grievance of the revenue read as under :- 1. Whether on the facts or in law, the CIT(A) was justified in allowing appeal of assessee on the issue of imposition of penalty, without appreciating the fact that the addition made by the AO was confirmed by the CIT(A) itself and ITAT, as far as the additions on the issue under consideration is concerned.

2.

Whether on the facts or in law, the CIT(A) was justified in allowing appeal of assessee without appreciating the fact that the disallowances made by the AO in respect of claim of overriding title made by the assessee in respect of infrastructure account have been confirmed by the appellate authorities

3.

The order of Ld. CIT(A) be cancelled and the order of the AO be restored.

3. A perusal of the aforementioned grounds show that the quantum addition have been confirmed by the appellate authorities, therefore, the CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act.

4.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee inspite of several notices, therefore, we decided to proceed exparte. 5. The DR was heard at length. The DR supplied the copy of the order of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case for A.Y.2006-07 and 2007-08 and pointed out that the quantum additions have been confirmed by this Tribunal. The DR further pointed out that the said order of the Tribunal has been affirmed by the Hon’ble Uattrakhand High Court in IT Appeal No.5 and 6 of 2012 order dated 20.06.2022. 6. We have carefully perused the orders of the authorities below. The roots for the levy of penalty lie in the assessment order dated 22.09.2015 framed u/s.143(3) of the Act wherein the AO made the addition of Rs.26540006/- to the returned income of the assessee.

7.

The addition was confirmed by the CIT(A) who followed the order of this Tribunal in wherein the Tribunal has held that the income is income of the assessee and not that of the State Government.

8.

The order of the Tribunal which has been followed by the CIT(A) for dismissing the appeal of the assessee was affirmed by the Hon’ble High Court of Uttarakhand in 142 taxmann.com 192. 9. Considering the history of the quantum addition we are of the considered view that this is a fit case for the levy of penalty u/s. 271 (1)(c) of the Act. We, therefore, set aside the order of the CIT(A) and confirm the levy of penalty u/s. 271 (1)(c) of the Act. 10. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed. 11. Decision announced in the open court on 26.07.2023.

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 →