ACIT Circle-2(2), New Delhi V. Alcatel Lucent Managed Solutions India Pvt Ltd, New Delhi

ITA 1440/DEL/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0127 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 2 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-10-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 16-10-2022
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 22-07-2020
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANKUL GOEL

Judgement Text

1 ITA No. 1440/Del/2020 ACIT Vs. Alcatel Lucent Managed Solutions IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘A’ NEW DELHI BEFORE DR. B. R. R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 1440/DEL/2020 (A.Y 2012-13) Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2(2) New Delhi (APPELLANT) Vs M/s. Alcatel Lucent Managed Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. 1507/1507S Level 15, Eros Corporte Tower, Nehru Place, New Delhi PAN: AAHCA1341C (RESPONDENT) ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JM The assessee has preferred the present appeal challenging the order dated 31/01/2020 passed by the Ld.CIT(A)-16, Mumbai on the following grounds:- “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting penalty levied by the AO u/s 271(l)(c) of the Act amounting to Rs. 9,56,85,812/- by holding in its order that Ld. AO has not mentioned that assessee has filed improper details or wrong details, which is contrary to the facts highlighted by the AO in penalty order. Appellant by Sh. Ankul goel, Adv & Sh. Priyam Bhatnagar, Adv Respondent by Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR Date of Hearing 17.10.2022 Date of Pronouncement 20.10.2022 2 ITA No. 1440/Del/2020 ACIT Vs. Alcatel Lucent Managed Solutions 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the peculiar nature of facts of the case that penalty was levied by the AO on the disallowance made on account of bed debt claim of assessee, which was found to be nothing but same transactions and a methodlolgy of colorable device so as to reduce taxable income.” 2. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that the addition made in the assessment order by the Ld. A.O. which has been confirmed by the Ld.CIT(A) for the year under consideration has been deleted in the quantum appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No. 5957/Mum/2016 vide order dated 17/12/2019, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has produced the copy of the same. Since the quantum appeal filed by the assessee has been allowed by deleting the addition, the penalty order and the order passed by the Ld.CIT (A) by confirming the penalty order will not sustain. Therefore, the impugned order passed by Ld.CIT (A) is set aside by deleting the penalty imposed on the assessee. 3. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on this 20 th Day of October , 2022 Sd/- Sd/- (B. R. R. KUMAR) (YOGESH KUMAR U.S.) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 20/10/2022 R. Naheed * Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI 3 ITA No. 1440/Del/2020 ACIT Vs. Alcatel Lucent Managed Solutions