SANJIV GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 30, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2673/DEL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 June 2023AY 2011-123 pages

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

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that since the CIT(A) had granted relief by deleting the penalty, and no prejudice was caused to the assessee by the First Appellate Order, the appeal was rendered infructuous.

What were the facts?

The assessee challenged a penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The penalty was related to additions sustained on account of personal expenses. However, the CIT(A) had already deleted the penalty.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal is maintainable when the relief sought has already been granted by the lower appellate authority and the assessee is aggrieved by the appeal effect order.

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 ‘G’ BENCH, DELHI

Before: SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA & SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US

Hearing: 27/06/2023

The captioned appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), (‘CIT(A)’ in short), dated 12.03.2018 arising from the penalty order passed under s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act).

2.

As per the grounds of appeal, the assessee has challenged the imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on additions finally sustained at Rs.71,915/- on account of expenses of personal nature.

3. When the matter was called for hearing, it transpired that the CIT(A) has already granted relief and deleted the penalty imposed on the aforesaid amount. The assessee has merely contended that while giving appeal effect to the First Appellate Order the Assessing Officer has not implemented the order of the CIT(A) and denied the relief towards penalty despite categorical observations of the CIT(A).

4.

The Ld. Counsel for the assessee thus contends that he seeks remedy before the Tribunal on the order giving appeal effect rather than the order of the CIT(A).

5.

In the light of the facts narrated in the preceding para, it is self evident that no prejudice is caused to the assessee by the First Appellate Order, in so far as penalty on disallowance of expenses is concerned. The CIT(A) while dealing with the issue has clearly observed that the concealment/furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income qua the aforesaid amount of Rs.71,915/- is not established. The CIT(A) has thus, granted relief on this score. This being the position, in the absence of any grievance arising from the First Appellate Order, the present appeal is rendered infructuous and thus, liable to be dismissed in limine.

6.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed as infructuous.

This Order was pronounced in Open Court on 27/06/2023

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 →