DCIT CIRCLE-22(2), NEW DELHI vs. SAIDHAM OVERSEAS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 335/DEL/2020Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 June 2023AY 2013-143 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that since the quantum appeal was remitted to the Assessing Officer, the penalty appeal also deserved to be remitted. The Assessing Officer was directed to consider the matter afresh after deciding the quantum appeal.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order concerning penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c). The quantum appeal, related to the additions on which the penalty was imposed, had been remitted back to the Assessing Officer by the ITAT.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty appeal should be remitted to the Assessing Officer when the related quantum appeal has been remitted. The propriety of allowing additional evidence by the CIT(A) was also raised.

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

Before: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA & SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA

For Respondent: Ms. Kajal Singh, Sr. DR
Hearing: 21.06.2023Pronounced: 23.06.2023

ORDER PER SHAMIM YAHYA, A.M.

This appeal by Revenue is directed against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-34, New Delhi, dated 22.10.2019 and pertains to Assessment Year 2013-14. The Grounds of appeal are as under:-

“1. Whether in facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was right in allowing the submission of additional evidences by the assessee company without proper appreciating the facts and findings of AO during the course of assessment proceedings. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred Page 1 of 3

ITA No.- 335/Del/2020 Saidham Overseas Pvt. Ltd. in deleting the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961 on the additions made, of Rs. 55,31,690/- on account of inaccurate particulars of income. 3. The appellant craves to amend, modify, alter add or forego any ground of appeal at any time before or during the hearing of this appeal.”

2. The issue raised in this appeal is regarding the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 amounting to Rs. 55,31,690/-.

2.1 We have heard the Ld. DR. None appeared on behalf of the Assessee. The Ld. DR pointed out that the quantum appeal, in this case in for Assessment Year 2013-14 has been remitted by the ITAT vide order dated 26.04.2023 to the file of the Assessing Officer. Hence, she pointed out that this appeal should also be remanded to the file of the Assessing Officer.

2.2 We have carefully considered the submission and perused the materials available on record. We find that since the quantum appeal with reference to which the penalty has been levied is remitted to the file of the Assessing Officer, then this penalty appeal also deserves to be remitted to the file of the Assessing Officer. We direct accordingly.

The Assessing Officer should consider the matter afresh after deciding the quantum appeal remitted by the ITAT.

3.

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stand allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 23/06/2023

Sd/- Sd/- (ANUBHAV SHARMA) (SHAMIM YAHYA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 23 /06/2023 (Pooja)

ITA No.- 335/Del/2020 Saidham Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI

21.06.2023 Date of dictation

Date on which the typed draft is placed before the 21.06.2023 dictating Member Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Other Member

Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr. PS/PS

Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for pronouncement Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr. PS/PS Date on which the final order is uploaded on the website of ITAT

Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk

Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk

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 →