AI Insights
The case involves Rohtas Singh, the appellant, who appealed against the penalty imposed by the Income Tax Officer (ITO) under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2014-15. The penalty of Rs.6,36,439 was confirmed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-15, New Delhi. The penalty was based on additions made to the assessee's declared income, which included income from the sale of property and interest income. The Tribunal decided to set aside the penalty order and remand the case back to the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) due to the pending quantum appeal, which could affect the penalty's validity.
Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 300805 (ITAT-DELHI)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
3 year(s) 7 month(s) 1 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
27-12-2022
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Allowed
Bench Allotted
SMC
Next Hearing Date
23-11-2022
Assessment Year
2014-2015
Appeal Filed On
26-05-2019
Judgement Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘SMC’ NEW DELHI SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.4823/Del/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Rohtas Singh, H. No.373, Village & PO – Bharthai, New Delhi-11000 77 Vs. ITO, Ward 44(4), New Delhi. PAN :BEVPS1272Q (Appellant) (Respondent) ORDER This is an appeal by the assessee against order dated 29.04.2019 of learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-15, New Delhi confirming the penalty imposed of Rs.6,36,439 under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 pertaining to assessment year 2014-15. 2. Briefly the facts are, the assessee is a resident individual. For the assessment year under dispute, assessee filed his return of income Assessee by Shri S.C. Garg, CA Respondent by Shri Toufel Tahir, Sr. DR Date of hearing 24.11.2022 Date of pronouncement 28.12.2022 2 ITA No.4823/Del/2019 declaring income of Rs.4,60,000. Assessment in case of the assessee was completed under Section 143(3) of the Act, vide order dated 16.08.2016 determining the income at Rs.27,29,670, by making the following additions: i) Income from sale property: Rs.3,84,666. ii) Interest income: Rs.19,85,000. 3. Based on the aforesaid additions, the Assessing Officer initiated proceedings for imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 and ultimately passed an order imposing penalty of Rs.6,36,439. Against the penalty order so passed, assessee preferred an appeal before learned Commissioner (Appeals). However, learned Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the penalty imposed. 4. I have considered rival submissions and perused the material available on record. 5. On a query being made regarding the status of the corresponding quantum appeal, learned counsel for the assessee submitted that it is still pending before learned Commissioner (Appeals). Thus, he submitted, the impugned order may be set aside and matter may be 3 ITA No.4823/Del/2019 restored back to learned Commissioner (Appeals) for deciding afresh after a decision is taken on the quantum of appeal. 6. Learned Departmental Representative did not object to the aforesaid submission of the assessee. 7. Having considered rival submissions, I am of the view that during the pendency of the quantum appeal before him, learned Commissioner (Appeals) should not have decided the penalty appeal, as, ultimately the issue of imposition of penalty will depend upon the confirmation or deletion of the additions made in the quantum proceedings. Since, the quantum appeal of the assessee is still pending before learned Commissioner (Appeals), I set aside the impugned order of learned Commissioner (Appeals) and restore the matter relating to the imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act to the file of the first appellate authority for taking a decision afresh depending upon the outcome of the quantum appeal. 8. Needless to mention, before deciding the appeal, the assessee must be provided reasonable opportunity of being heard. 9. Grounds are allowed for statistical purposes. 4 ITA No.4823/Del/2019 10. In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 28 th December, 2022. Sd/- (SAKTIJIT DEY) Dated: 28 th December,2022 JUDICIAL MEMBER Mohan Lal Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi
