MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, LTU, NEW DELHI
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
Since the addition made by the Assessing Officer under Section 43B was deleted by the Tribunal, the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) on account of this addition does not survive. Therefore, the Assessing Officer is directed to delete the penalty.
What were the facts?
The Assessing Officer made a disallowance under Section 43B for property tax paid. The CIT(A) confirmed a part of this addition. Subsequently, the ITAT allowed the assessee's appeal against the addition.
What were the issues?
Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be sustained when the primary addition leading to the penalty has been deleted.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: E: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG & SHRI M. BALAGANESH
ORDER PER CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, J.M. This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 25.03.2019 of the Ld.CIT(A)-22, New Delhi, relating to Assessment Year 2007-08.
This is an assessee appeal against the order of CIT(A) dated 25.03.2019 whereby CIT(A) has confirmed the amount of penalty of Rs. 25,08,012/- imposed by AO u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act 1961. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee’s case was selected for the re-assessment proceedings u/s. 147 of the Income Tax Act 1961 whereby AO via order dated 30.03.2015 made disallowance of Rs. 20,56,82,131/- u/s. 43B of the Income Tax Act 1961 on account of property tax paid. Thereafter the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) against the order of Assessing Officer. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition of Rs. 74,51,016/- u/s. 43B of the Income Tax Act 1961. Both assessee and revenue filed an appeal against CIT(A) order bearing and 4817/Del/2016 respectively before the Tribunal. The Tribunal via order dated 27.04.2023 allowed the assessee appeal and dismissed the revenue appeal. These facts have not been controverted by the ld. Senior DR.
Consequently, deleting the entire addition of Rs. 74,51,016/- confirmed by CIT(A). since the above mentioned appeal of assessee has been allowed and addition made AO u/s. 43B has been deleted. Hence, penalty of Rs. 25,08, 012/- confirmed by the CIT(A) u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act does not survive and hence we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the same.
In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 22.05.2023.
More judgments on Section 43B
- Vco Consulatatns and Sevices Private… vs ITO, Corporate Ward 3(3), ChennaiITA 2145/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Siemens Gamesa Renewable Power Private… vs The Dy CIT Circle 8(2)(1), MumbaiITA 8020/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Amritvarsha Industries Limited, Ambedkar… vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 6481/DEL/2026[2010-2011]Status: Disposed7 Oct 2026AY 2010-2011
- Karaj Singh, Haryana vs PCIT (Central) Gurgaon, GurgaonITA 642/CHANDI/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed1 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
- ACIT, Mumbai vs Imp Powers Limited, MumbaiITA 4982/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2012-13
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Piyush Shantilal Veera vs. State Of U.P.Allahabad · 23 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Pooja Shri Traders vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - 1Madras · 23 Oct 2026
- Aashutosh vs. The State Of Madhy PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 23 Oct 2026
- M/S Barnala Steel Industries Private Limited vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 OthersAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- Skd Suppliers Private Limited vs. The Superintendent, Central CGST, Rishra Division, Range-Ii, And AnrCalcutta · 22 Oct 2026