STMicroelectronics Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi V. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 2126/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4838 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 4 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-08-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: I2
• Next Hearing Date: 20-06-2017
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 09-04-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S P SINGH

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : I-2 : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NOS.2126 TO 2128/DEL/2014 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2003-04 , 2004-05 & 2006-07 ST MICROELECTRONICS PVT. LTD., D-28, SOUTH EXTENSION PART-I, NEW DELHI. PAN: AAACS3406M VS. ACIT, CIRCLE-9(1), NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI S.P. SINGH, ADVOCATE DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI H.K. CHOUDHARY, CIT, DR DATE OF HEARING : 28.08.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29.08.2017 ORDER PER R.S. SYAL, VP: THESE THREE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRE CTED AGAINST THE CONFIRMATION OF PENALTY BY THE CIT(A), WHICH WAS IM POSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME-TAX A CT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER ITA NOS.2126 TO 2128/DEL/2014 2 ALSO CALLED THE ACT) IN RELATION TO THE ASSESSMEN T YEARS 2003-04 , 2004- 05 & 2006-07. 2. SHORN OF UNNECESSARY DETAILS, IT IS SEEN THAT QU ANTUM APPEALS FOR THE ABOVE REFERRED THREE YEARS CAME UP FOR CONSIDER ATION BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. VIDE ORDER DATED 07.07.2017, THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NOS.1806 & 1807/DEL/2008 AND 5058/DEL/2010, HAS RESTORED THE A DDITIONS TO THE FILE OF TPO/A.O. FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION. IN VIEW OF THE RESTORATION IN QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS, THE INSTANT PENALTIES ON SUCH RESTORED ISSUE ARE ALSO SENT BACK TO THE AO FOR TAKING AN APPROPRIATE DECISION AFTER THE FINALIZATION OF THE FRESH ASSESSMENT PURSUANT TO TH E TRIBUNAL ORDER. OUR VIEW IN RESTORING THE PENALTY TO THE AO IS FORTIFIE D BY THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF MOHD. MOHATRAM FAROOQUI VS. CIT (SC) 2010-TIOL-23-SC-IT IN WHICH IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT IF ADDITION IS RESTORED TO THE AO, THEN PENALTY SHOULD ALSO BE RESTORED. THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN SANJAY GUPTA VS. CIT (2014) 366 ITR 18 (DEL) HAS ALSO HELD THAT WHERE THE QUANTUM HAS BEEN REMA NDED TO THE AO, THE QUESTION OF PENALTY ON ACCOUNT OF THE S AID AMOUNT BEING ITA NOS.2126 TO 2128/DEL/2014 3 TREATED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME, SHOULD ALSO BE REMAN DED TO THE AO. WE, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND REMIT T HE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR DETERMINING THE QUESTION OF PENALTY OR O THERWISE ON THE ISSUE, AFTER THE PASSING OF THE ORDERS PURSUANT TO THE RES TORATION MADE BY THE TRIBUNAL. 3. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS ARE ALLOWED FOR S TATISTICAL PURPOSES. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29.08.201 7. SD/- SD/- [SUCHITRA KAMBLE] [R.S. SYAL] JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT DATED, 29 TH AUGUST, 2017. DK COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT AR, ITAT, NEW DELHI.