ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GURGUGRAM V. SAHAJ BHARTI TRAVELS PRIVATE LIMITED, GURUGRAM

ITA 3088/DEL/2024

AI Insights

The case revolves around an appeal by the Department of Revenue against Sahaj Bharti Travels Pvt. Ltd. concerning a penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for alleged concealment of income. The Assessee had initially claimed depreciation twice due to a clerical error, which was later rectified in subsequent assessments. The CIT(A) had deleted the penalty, citing lack of mala fide intent and reliance on precedents that penalties are not applicable for inadvertent errors. The Tribunal, after considering the arguments and the material on record, upheld the CIT(A)'s decision and dismissed the appeal by the Revenue.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 633656 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-06-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Other Referred Cases: CIT Vs. Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 158, Price Water House Coopers Pvt. Ltd. 138 ITR 306
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANISH GUPTA
• Keywords: Depreciation
• Section: 271(1)(c); 32

Judgement Text

"1 ITA No. 3088/Del/2024 ACIT Vs. Sahaj Bharti Travels IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI (DELHI BENCH ‘G’ NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 3088/DEL/2024 (A.Y. 2016-17) Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Gurugram O/O, the ACIT, Circle-3(1), 2nd floor, HSIIDC Building, Vanijya Nikunj, Udyog Vihar, Phase-5, Gurgaon, Haryana Vs. Sahaj Bharti Travels Pvt. Ltd. 1866/3, Rajeev Nagar, Gurgaon, Haryana PAN: AAQCS3603Q Appellant Respondent Assessee by None Revenue by Sh. Manish Gupta, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 26/05/2025 Date of Pronouncement 13/06/2025 ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR, U.S. JM: The present appeal is filed by the Department of Revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [‘Ld. CIT(A)’ /NFAC for short] dated 29/02/2024 for the Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, the Assessee is a Private Limited Company, filed return for Assessment Year 2016-17 declaring loss of Rs. 2,53,31,641/-. The Ld. A.O. completed the assessment proceedings computing the total loss of the Assessee at Rs. 45,48,851/-, wherein the A.O. disallowed depreciation of Rs. 2 ITA No. 3088/Del/2024 ACIT Vs. Sahaj Bharti Travels 2,07,82,790/- which was claimed twice by the Assessee u/s 32 of Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short). 3. An order of penalty has been imposed to 28/06/2019 u/s 271 (1)(c) of the Act, wherein the Ld. A.O. imposed penalty of Rs. 71,92,508/- which is equal to 100% of tax sought to be evaded. 4. Aggrieved by the order of penalty dated 28/06/2019, the Assessee preferred an Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 29/02/2024, by following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 158, directed the A.O. to delete the penalty. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 29/02/2204, the Revenue preferred the present Appeal. 5. None appeared for the Assessee, the notices issued by the registry have been returned unserved. Considering the issue involved in the present Appeal, we deem it fit to decide the Appeal on hearing the Ld. Departmental Representative and verifying the material available on record. 6. The Ld. Departmental Representative vehemently submitted that, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty without appreciating the fact that the penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) is civil liability and the Assessee has willfully made the concealment or with malafide 3 ITA No. 3088/Del/2024 ACIT Vs. Sahaj Bharti Travels intention to evade the taxes. Thus, the Ld. CIT(A) committed error in deleting the penalty, therefore, sought for allowing the Appeal. 7. We have heard the Ld. Departmental Representative perused the material available on record.Admittedly, the Assessee in its return claimed the depreciation twice. As per the Assessee, the claim madetwice was due to clerical error and before the A.O., the Assessee claimed that depreciation chart was entered twice in software and WDV was added twice andthe Assessee requested the A.O. to disallow unobserveddepreciation carried forward of Rs. 2,07,82,790/-. Further, it is also a matter of fact that the Assessee did not derive any benefit due to ‘loss’ in future years and the mistake was rectified while filing the return of income for Assessment Year 2019-20. The Ld. CIT(A) by relying on the ratio laid down in the case of Reliance Petro products Ltd. (supra), wherein held that mere making claim which is not sustainable by law will not amounts to furnishing inaccurate particulars regarding income of the Assessee. Further, the Ld. CIT(A) has also relied on the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Price Water House Coopers Pvt. Ltd. 138 ITR 306, wherein it is held that penalty is not leviable in the case of inadvertent and bona-fide error. 8. Considering the fact that the claim of depreciationmade by the Assessee being clerical error while entering the details of 4 ITA No. 3088/Del/2024 ACIT Vs. Sahaj Bharti Travels depreciationand the same did not affect the taxespaid and the said error has been corrected by the Assessee in later assessment years, the Ld. CIT(A) rightly observed that there was no mala-fide intention on the part of the Assessee to evade taxes and deleted the penalty. Thus, we find no error or infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the penalty, finding no merits in the Grounds of Appeal of the Revenue, the Grounds of Appeal of the Revenue are dismissed. 9. In the result, the Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 13th June, 2025 Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- (MANISH AGARWAL) (YOGESH KUMAR U.S.) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Date:- 13 .06.2025 R.N, Sr.P.S* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTR ITAT, NEW DELHI 5 ITA No. 3088/Del/2024 ACIT Vs. Sahaj Bharti Travels "