Surya Kirti Chand Thapar, New Delhi V. ITO WARD - 26(2), New Delhi

ITA 1762/DEL/2020

AI Insights

The case involves Surya Kirti Chand Thapar, the appellant, who challenged the penalty imposed by the Income Tax Officer (ITO) under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year 2010-11. The penalty of Rs. 5,27,185 was levied due to additions made in the quantum proceedings concerning non-genuine cash deposits. The appellant argued that the quantum proceedings were still pending before the CIT(A), and thus, the penalty was premature. The ITAT decided to remit the case back to the CIT(A) to reassess the penalty after the conclusion of the quantum proceedings.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 121176 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 8 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-07-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 18-07-2023
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 22-10-2020
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 271(1)(c)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘G’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.1762/Del/2020 (Assessment Year : 2010-11) Surya Kirti Chand Thapar 299/8, State Bank Colony, Kurukshetra, Haryana -136 118 PAN No. ABSPT 4614 N Vs. ITO Ward-26(2) New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by Shri Shantanu Jain, Adv. Revenue by Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing: 19.07.2023 Date of Pronouncement: 19.07.2023 PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, AM : The captioned appeal has been filed at the instance of the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-36, Delhi (‘CIT(A)’ in short) dated 21.09.2020 arising from the penalty order dated 21.06.2018 passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) for the Assessment Year 2010-11 in question. 2. As per the grounds of appeal, the assessee has challenged imposition of penalty of Rs.5,27,185/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on the additions made in the quantum proceedings towards non genuine cash deposits. ITA No.1762/Del/2020 Surya Kirti Chand Thapar vs. ITO 2 3. When the matter was called for hearing, the Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted at the outset that the quantum proceedings in the matter are pending before the First Appellate Authority and therefore, the penalty imposed is dependent upon the outcome of the quantum proceedings before the CIT(A). 4. In the light submissions made, we consider expediency to remit the matter back to the file of the CIT(A). The CIT(A) shall determine correctness of imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act afresh after taking into account the outcome of the quantum proceedings either before him or before the ITAT and in accordance with law. Needless to say, a reasonable opportunity shall be afforded to the assessee to present its case. 5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 19.07.2023 Sd/- Sd/- (KUL BHARAT) (PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Date:- 19.07.2023 Priti Yadav* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI