SURYA KIRTI CHAND THAPAR,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 26(2), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1762/DEL/2020Status: HeardITAT Delhi19 July 2023AY 2010-112 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the penalty is contingent on the outcome of the quantum proceedings. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) to decide the penalty afresh after the quantum proceedings are concluded.

What were the facts?

The assessee challenged a penalty of Rs. 5,27,185 imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for the Assessment Year 2010-11. The penalty was based on additions made for non-genuine cash deposits.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be sustained when the quantum additions are still pending before the 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 ‘G’, NEW DELHI

For Appellant: Shri Shantanu Jain, Adv
For Respondent: Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. D.R
Hearing: 19.07.2023Pronounced: 19.07.2023

PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, AM :

1.

The captioned appeal has been filed at the instance of the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-36, Delhi (‘CIT(A)’ in short) dated 21.09.2020 arising from the penalty order dated 21.06.2018 passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) for the Assessment Year 2010-11 in question.

2.

As per the grounds of appeal, the assessee has challenged imposition of penalty of Rs.5,27,185/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on the additions made in the quantum proceedings towards non genuine cash deposits.

Surya Kirti Chand Thapar vs. ITO 2 3. When the matter was called for hearing, the Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted at the outset that the quantum proceedings in the matter are pending before the First Appellate Authority and therefore, the penalty imposed is dependent upon the outcome of the quantum proceedings before the CIT(A).

4.

In the light submissions made, we consider expediency to remit the matter back to the file of the CIT(A). The CIT(A) shall determine correctness of imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act afresh after taking into account the outcome of the quantum proceedings either before him or before the ITAT and in accordance with law. Needless to say, a reasonable opportunity shall be afforded to the assessee to present its case.

5.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 19.07.2023

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 →