EXTENSIVE TRADING PRIVATE LIMITED ,JHARKHAND V. ITO, WARD-9(1), DELHI, DELHI

ITA 3821/DEL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Extensive Trading (P.) Limited, the appellant, contesting a penalty imposed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(1), Delhi, the respondent. The penalty was initially levied following an addition made during the assessment year 2018-19, which was later contested and led to an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal had previously allowed the appellant's appeal regarding the quantum addition, which was a crucial factor in the imposition of the penalty. The appellant argued that the delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) should have been condoned and that the penalty order was unjustified as the underlying quantum addition had been reversed.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 790818 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-12-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 10-06-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: HARPREET KAUR HANSRA
• Assessee Lawyers: AVIJIT DEY
• Keywords: Retrospective amendment; Reasonable cause; Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Earning of tax free income
• Section: 14A

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.3821/Del/2025 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2018-19) Extensive Trading (P.) Limited C/o RK Chowdhury, Near SR Projeet Colony, Tumangdugri Moubhandar, West Singhbhum-832103 Jharkhand. PAN-AABCF6150C Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(1), Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Avijit Dey, Adv. Department by Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 11/11/2025 Date of Pronouncement 01/12/2025 O R D E R PER SUDHIR PAREEK, JM: This appeal is preferred by the Assessee against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. CIT(A) in short] dated 19.07.2024 passed U/s 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’) for Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1. Ground 1. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Learned CIT(A) erred in not condoning delay in filing appeal before him through there is a reasonable cause for the delay. 2. Ground 2. For that on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered that the penalty order u/s 270A passed by the Ld. A.O. is bad in law and is liable to be quashed. Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No.3821/Del/2025 Extensive Trading Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO 3. Ground 3. For that on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the amount of penalty imposed by the Ld. AO amounting to Rs.19,51,100/- u/s 270A of the Act. 4. Ground 4. For that the penalty imposed by the A.O. to the tune of Rs.19,51,100/- is not sustainable since the quantum addition on which basis such penalty was imposed has been deleted by the Hon’ble Tribunal vide an order dated 14.05.2025. 5. Ground 5. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete all or any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.” 3. At the outset, the Learned AR submitted that the Tribunal, while deciding appeal of the assessee ITA 625/Del/2025(AY 2018-19), observed that amendment made by Finance Act, 2022 to section 14A of the Act by inserting a non-obstante clause and explanation will take effect from 01/04/2022 and cannot be presumed to have retrospective effect and no disallowance could be made u/s 14A of the Act if no exempt income was earned by the appellant and accordingly appeal was allowed. It is also submitted that the impugned penalty order is quite erroneous because the addition made by the Learned AO deleted as mentioned hereinbefore by the Tribunal vide order Dated 14/05/2025. 4. Heard rival submissions and carefully perused the material available on record. We find that in quantum proceedings the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the appellant and it is established principal of law that where quantum allowed, then penalty order could not survive and accordingly, same is deserves to be quashed and ground raised by the assessee is hereby allowed. 5. Consequently, appeal of the assessee stands allowed as indicated above. Order pronounced in open Court on 01st December, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA) (SUDHIR PAREEK) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 01.12.2025. PK/Sr. PS Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No.3821/Del/2025 Extensive Trading Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 1. Respondent 2. CIT 3. CIT(Appeals) 4. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI Printed from counselvise.com "