K.C. Builders & Anr. v. ACIT

265 ITR 562Supreme Court of India2004#362 most cited

What is K.C. Builders & Anr. v. ACIT authority for?

When the addition made in the assessment order, on the basis of which a penalty for concealment under section 271(1)(c) is levied, is subsequently deleted, the penalty has no basis and must be cancelled.

241

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,368 Indian tax judgments — from 2007 to 2026.

Also referred to as

K.C. Builders v. ACIT · 265 ITR 562 · section 271(1)(c) penalty · concealment of income · deletion of quantum addition · penalty not sustainable · penalty cancellation · basis for penalty

Sections most often in play

Section 271(1)(c)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 154Section 43ASection 80IBSection 80IB(10)Section 11
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 271(1)(c)penalty u/s 271(1)(c)concealment of incomesection 271levy of penaltyincriminating materialsection 271(1)section 153section 153asection 15section 27section 143

Judgments citing K.C. Builders & Anr. v. ACIT

M/S. Quality Enabled Remote Solutions (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 291/DEL/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Hon’Ble, Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Somil Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Senior DR
Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘F’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT, SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL and SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.291/Del./2017 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06) M/s. Quality Enabled Remote Solutions vs. ACIT, (P) Ltd., Central Circle 30, 515, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi. New Delhi. (PAN : AAACQ0881A) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Somil Agarwal, Advocate REVENUE BY : Shri Surender Pal, Senior DR Date of Hearing : 12.06.2019 Date of Order : 13.06.2019 O R D E R PER KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER : Appellant, M/s. Quality Enabled Remote Solutions (P) Ltd…

Neeraj Singal, New Delhi vs. CIT(A)- 23, New Delhi

ITA 4040/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble, Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Pramita M. Biswas, CIT DR
Section 143Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…sion expenses @ 6% of net gain and on account of bogus purchase of jewellery. It is settled principle of law ld. CIT (A) is also not sustainable. Reliance is placed on the decision rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in case cited as K.C. Builders & Anr vs. ACIT – 265 ITR 562 (SC) wherein it is held as under : “when the addition made in the assessment order on the basis of which penalty for concealment is levied have been deleted there remains no basis at all for levying the penalty for concealment and in such case, no penalty can survive and the penalty is liable to be cancelled.” 8. In view of what has been discuss…

Neeraj Singal, New Delhi vs. CIT(A)- 23, New Delhi

ITA 4039/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble, Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Pramita M. Biswas, CIT DR
Section 143Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…sion expenses @ 6% of net gain and on account of bogus purchase of jewellery. It is settled principle of law ld. CIT (A) is also not sustainable. Reliance is placed on the decision rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in case cited as K.C. Builders & Anr vs. ACIT – 265 ITR 562 (SC) wherein it is held as under : “when the addition made in the assessment order on the basis of which penalty for concealment is levied have been deleted there remains no basis at all for levying the penalty for concealment and in such case, no penalty can survive and the penalty is liable to be cancelled.” 8. In view of what has been discuss…

Neeraj Singal, New Delhi vs. CIT(A)- 23, New Delhi

ITA 4038/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble, Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Pramita M. Biswas, CIT DR
Section 143Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…sion expenses @ 6% of net gain and on account of bogus purchase of jewellery. It is settled principle of law ld. CIT (A) is also not sustainable. Reliance is placed on the decision rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in case cited as K.C. Builders & Anr vs. ACIT – 265 ITR 562 (SC) wherein it is held as under : “when the addition made in the assessment order on the basis of which penalty for concealment is levied have been deleted there remains no basis at all for levying the penalty for concealment and in such case, no penalty can survive and the penalty is liable to be cancelled.” 8. In view of what has been discuss…

Neeraj Singal, New Delhi vs. CIT(A)- 23, New Delhi

ITA 4037/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble, Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Pramita M. Biswas, CIT DR
Section 143Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…sion expenses @ 6% of net gain and on account of bogus purchase of jewellery. It is settled principle of law ld. CIT (A) is also not sustainable. Reliance is placed on the decision rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in case cited as K.C. Builders & Anr vs. ACIT – 265 ITR 562 (SC) wherein it is held as under : “when the addition made in the assessment order on the basis of which penalty for concealment is levied have been deleted there remains no basis at all for levying the penalty for concealment and in such case, no penalty can survive and the penalty is liable to be cancelled.” 8. In view of what has been discuss…

Sanjeev Goel, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-29(1), New Delhi

ITA 5383/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 May 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble, Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Kuldip Singhearly Hearing Appln.No.149/Del/2019 (In Ita No.5383/Del./2018) (Assessment Year : 2008-09) & Ita No.5383/Del./2018 (Assessment Year : 2008-09) Shri Sanjeev Goel, Vs. Ito, Ward 29 (1), 4101, 3Rd Floor, Naya Bazar, New Delhi. Delhi – 110 016. (Pan :Aahpg2434M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Satyajeet Goel, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Amit Katoch, Senior Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.05.2019 Date Of Order : 17.05.2019 O R D E R Per Kuldip Singh: Early Hearing Application No.149/Del/2019 Dated 15.04.2019 Is Hereby Allowed Keeping In View The Fact That When Addition On The Basis Of Which Penalty Has Been Levied & Confirmed By Ao/Cit (A) Has Already Been Deleted By The 2 Tribunal, Penalty Levied Is Prima Facie Not Sustainable, Hence The Bench Is Proceeded To Decide The Aforesaid Appeal By Today Itself.

For Appellant: Shri Satyajeet Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Senior DR
Section 143Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…(supra) deleted the addition made u/s 68 of the Act. In these circumstances, the penalty levied by the AO and 4 confirmed by ld. CIT (A) is not sustainable in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case cited as K.C. Builders & Anr vs. ACIT – 265 ITR 562 (SC) because “when the addition made in the assessment order on the basis of which penalty for concealment is levied have been deleted there remains no basis at all for levying the penalty for concealment and in such case, no penalty can survive and the penalty is liable to be cancelled.” So, in view of the matter, penalty levied by the AO and co…

Income Tax Officer, Ward-3-2, Jaipur vs. Silver Sand Builders Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1243/JPR/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 May 2019AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri S. R. Sharma (CA)For Respondent: Shri Ashok Khanna (JCIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 23(1)(a)Section 271(1)(c)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR Jh jes'k lh- 'kekZ] ys[kk lnL; ,oa h Jh fot; iky jkWo] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI RAMESH C. SHARMA, AM & SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 1243/JP/2018 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2012-13. cuke Income Tax Officer, M/s. Silver Sand Builders Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ward 3(2), C-3A/1A, Sawai Jai Singh Highway, Jaipur. Bani Park, Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN No. AAECS 7851 E vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri Ashok Khanna (JCIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj…

Jayasish Roy, Bhubaneswar vs. ITO, Ward-2(2), Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 144/CTK/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack30 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg

For Appellant: Shri P.C.Sethi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR
Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.143 & 144/CTK/2018 Assessment Year: 2010-2011 Sri Jayasish Roy, Plot Vs. ITO, Ward 2(2), No.484, Saheed Nagar, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar PAN/GIR No.AANPR 5540 H (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee by : Shri P.C.Sethi, AR Revenue by : Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR Date of Hearing : 30/04/ 2019 Date of Pronouncement : 30 /04/ 2019 O R D E R ITA No.143/CTK/2018 is filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-2, Bhubaneswar dated 23.11.2017 for the assessment…

Jayasish Roy, Bhubaneswar vs. ITO, Ward-2(2), Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 143/CTK/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack30 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg

For Appellant: Shri P.C.Sethi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR
Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.143 & 144/CTK/2018 Assessment Year: 2010-2011 Sri Jayasish Roy, Plot Vs. ITO, Ward 2(2), No.484, Saheed Nagar, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar PAN/GIR No.AANPR 5540 H (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee by : Shri P.C.Sethi, AR Revenue by : Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR Date of Hearing : 30/04/ 2019 Date of Pronouncement : 30 /04/ 2019 O R D E R ITA No.143/CTK/2018 is filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-2, Bhubaneswar dated 23.11.2017 for the assessment…

DCIT 5(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Regency Hotels P.Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 1916/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Sh. Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon’Ble Sh. G. Manjunatha, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1916/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri D. G. PansariFor Respondent: Shri Hari Raheja, AR

…fore there remains no basis at all for levying penalty and hence in such a case no penalty can survive and is thus liable to be cancelled. On this proposition, we rely upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K. C. Builder & another vrs. ACIT 265 ITR 562. 3 I.T.A. No. 1916/Mum/2018 M/s Regency Hotels Pvt. Ltd. 4. In view of the above facts, circumstances and discussion, we uphold the order of Ld. CIT(A) in directing the AO to delete the penalty. It is ordered accordingly. 5. In the net result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed with no order as to cost. Order pronounced in the open…

DCIT, Yamunanagar vs. Kunal Calcium Limited, Yamunanagar

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 907/CHANDI/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Apr 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sanjay Garg

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Goel, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar
Section 271(1)(c)

…f which the Assessing officer levied the impugned penalties u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. ITA Nos. 907 & 908-Chd/2018 M./s Kunal Calcium Limited, Yamunanagar 8. On a similar issue, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K. C. Builders & Others Vs ACIT (2004) 265 ITR 562 has held as under:- “Where the additions made in the assessment order on the basis of which penalty for concealment is levied, are deleted, there remains no basis at all for levying penalty for concealment and, therefore, in such a case no penalty can survive and the penalty is liable to be cancelled. Ordinarily, penalty cannot stand if the ass…

DCIT Cent. Cir. - 8(4), Mumbai vs. Bermaco Energy Ltd., Navi Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 128/MUM/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Bled.C.I.T Central Circle – 8(4) V. M/S. Bermaco Energy Ltd., Room No. 658, 6Th Floor D-73/1, Ttc Industrial Area, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Midc Road, Turbhe, Mumbai-400 020 Navi Mumbai – 400 705 Pan: Aaccb 7021 P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Department By : Shri Chaudhary Arunkumar Singh

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Chaudhary Arunkumar Singh
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…tum addition made u/s. 68 of the Act in the assessment proceedings. Since quantum addition is deleted by the Tribunal he observed that the penalty levied will not survive in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of KC Builders v. ACIT [265 ITR 562]. Thus, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) in deleting the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Accordingly, we uphold the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and reject the grounds raised by the Revenue. 5. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on the 29th March, 2019 (RAJESH KUMA…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Indirapuram Habitat Centre Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 3225/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Mar 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…ITA No.-3225/Del/2016. Indirapuram Habitat Centre Private Limited. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH: ‘B’: NEW DELHI) BEFORE SMT. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No:- 3225/Del/2016 (Assessment Year: 2009-10) ACIT, Ms Indirapuram Habitat Central Circle -17, Vs. Centre Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 103, First Floor, Hall 702-704, D Mall, Netaji No. -1, ARA Centre, E-2, Subhash Place, Pitampura, Jhandewalan, New Delhi. New Delhi. PAN No: AAGCS4747R APPELLANT RESPONDENT Revenue by : Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. DR Assessee by : Shri Vijay Agarwal, CA ORDER PER ANAD…

ITO, W-6(1), Ludhiana vs. M/S Bronze Logistics Pvt. Ltd., Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 1260/CHANDI/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Feb 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sanjay Garg

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Gupta, CIT DRFor Respondent: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate
Section 271(1)(c)

…mitted fact that the addition on the basis of which the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was levied by the Assessing officer has been deleted by the ITAT. 6. On a similar issue, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K. C. Builders & Others Vs ACIT (2004) 265 ITR 562 has held as under:- “Where the additions made in the assessment order on the basis of which penalty for concealment is levied, are deleted, there remains no basis at all for levying penalty for concealment and, therefore, in such a case no penalty can survive and the penalty is liable to be cancelled. Ordinarily, penalty cannot stand if the ass…

Jubilant Biosys Ltd, Noida vs. JCIT, Range-1, Noida

ITA 7541/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Feb 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble, Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Kuldip Singhearly Hearing Application No.25/Del/2019 (In Ita No.7541/Del./2018) (Assessment Year : 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri Rishabh Malhotra, ARFor Respondent: Shri Amit Katoj, Senior DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…ing been deleted by the Tribunal, penalty levied by AO and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) is not sustainable in the eyes of law, hence ordered to be deleted in view of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of K.C. Builders & Anr vs. ACIT – 265 ITR 562 (SC) wherein it is held that, “when the addition made in the assessment order on the basis of which penalty for concealment is levied have been deleted there remains no basis at all for levying the penalty for concealment and in such case, no penalty can survive and the penalty is liable to be cancelled.” So, in view of the matter, penalty levied…

Sh. Mukesh Mittal, Panchkula vs. DCIT, CC-II, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1188/CHANDI/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Jan 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sanjay Gargshri Mukesh Mittal Vs. The Dcit H.No. 515, Sector 16 Central Circle-Ii Panchkula Chandigarh

For Appellant: Shri. Sachin Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Manjit Singh, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)(c)

…the addition on the basis of which penalty was levied by the Assessing Officer had been deleted by the ITAT vide aforesaid referred to order dt. 05/11/2018. On a similar issue the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K.C. Builders and Another Vs. ACIT (2004) 265 ITR 562 held as under: “ Where the additions made in the assessment order on the basis of which penalty for concealment is levied, are deleted, there remains no basis at all for levying penalty for concealment and, therefore, in such a case no penalty can survive and the penalty is liable to be cancelled. Ordinarily, penalty cannot stand if the assessmen…

Makemytrip (India) Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 6514/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2009-10

Section 194HSection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 40

…In the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench ‘ E’, New Delhi Before : Shri Amit Shukla, Judicial Member And Shri L.P. Sahu, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2009-10 MakeMy Trip (India) Pvt. Ltd., vs. DCIT, Circle 6(1), 243, Ground Floor, Tower A, New Delhi. S.P. Infocity, Udyog Vihar, Phase-1, Gurgaon. PAN- AADCMS 5146R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Tarandeep Singh, Advocate Respondent by Sh. Sridhar Dora, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 28.11.2018 Date of Pronouncement 16.01.2019 ORDER Per L.P. Sahu, A.M.: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of ld. CIT(A)-XX, New Delhi date…

M/S. Amtrac Automotive India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 4887/DEL/2015[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Dec 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N.S. Saini & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri J.P. Sondhi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sameer Kumar Srivastava, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…17 (supra) deleted the addition made u/s 68 of the Act. In these circumstances, the penalty levied by the AO and confirmed by ld. CIT (A) is not sustainable in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case cited as K.C. Builders & Anr vs. ACIT – 265 ITR 562 (SC) because “when the addition made in the assessment order on the basis of which penalty for concealment is levied have been deleted there remains no basis at all for levying the penalty for concealment and in such case, no penalty can survive and the penalty is liable to be cancelled.” So, in view of the matter, penalties levied by the AO and…

M/S. Amtrac Automotive India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 4886/DEL/2015[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Dec 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri N.S. Saini & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri J.P. Sondhi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sameer Kumar Srivastava, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…17 (supra) deleted the addition made u/s 68 of the Act. In these circumstances, the penalty levied by the AO and confirmed by ld. CIT (A) is not sustainable in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case cited as K.C. Builders & Anr vs. ACIT – 265 ITR 562 (SC) because “when the addition made in the assessment order on the basis of which penalty for concealment is levied have been deleted there remains no basis at all for levying the penalty for concealment and in such case, no penalty can survive and the penalty is liable to be cancelled.” So, in view of the matter, penalties levied by the AO and…

Pragati Finsec Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward -20(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2914/DEL/2018[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Oct 2018AY 2002-03

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 2914/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2002-03 Pragati Finsec Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, C/O M. C. Jain & Co., 4701/21, Ward-20(1), Ansari Road, Daryaganj, New Delhi New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacp4524B Assessee By : Sh. Mayank Patwari, Aca Revenue By : Sh. Surendra Meena, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.10.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.10.2018 Order This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 26.02.2018 Of Ld. Cit(A)-7, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. Mayank Patwari, ACAFor Respondent: Sh. Surendra Meena, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)(c)

…been deleted by the ld. CIT(A)/ITAT. Therefore, the impugned penalty is not leviable u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, when the addition has already been deleted. 6. On a similar issue, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K. C. Builders & Others Vs ACIT (2004) 265 ITR 562 has held as under: “Where the additions made in the assessment order on the basis of which penalty for concealment is levied, are deleted, there remains no basis at all for levying penalty for concealment and, therefore, in such a case no penalty can survive and the penalty is liable to be cancelled. Ordinarily, penalty cannot stand if the assess…