Signatures Builders Pvt ltd, New Delhi V. Addi. CIT Range-77, New Delhi

ITA 5735/DEL/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 106 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3484 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 1 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-08-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 30-06-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Set aside

Judgement Text

Page 1 of 5 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘G’: NEW DELHI BEFORE, SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.5735/Del/2019 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2017-18) Signature Builders Pvt. Ltd. 1308-11, 13 th Floor Dr. Gopal Dass Bhawan Barakhamba Road Connaught Place New Delhi-110001 PAN-AAPCS 8794K Vs. Add. CIT, Range-77, Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Advocate Sh. Amarbir Singh, CA and Sh. Utkarsa Kumar Gupta, Advocate Respondent by Sh. Jeetendra Chand, Senior Departmental Representative (“Sr. DR” for short) ORDER PER ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, AM (A) This appeal by Assessee is filed against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-31, New Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)”, for short], dated 13/05/2019 for Assessment Year 2017-18. Grounds taken in this appeal are as under: “(i) That the order of the Ld. A.O. as well as CIT(A) in unlawful, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. ITA No.5735/Del/2019 Signatures Builders Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT Page 2 of 5 (ii) That the Ld. A.O. as well as CIT(A) was not justified in levying/confirming penalty of Rs.6,62,100/- U/s 271C of the I.T. Act, 1961. (iii) That the assessee craves right to amend, delete, substitute any one or more of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.” (B) In this case, order dated 11/01/2018 was passed by the Assessing Officer, levying penalty amounting to Rs.6,62,100/- u/s 271C of Income Tax Act (being 2% of the EDC amount paid to HUDA). (B.1) Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal in the office of Ld. CIT(A). Vide impugned appellate order dated 13/05/2019, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the aforesaid penalty of Rs.6,62,100/-. Aggrieved again, the assessee has filed this present appeal in Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (“ITAT” for short) against the aforesaid impugned appellate order dated 13/05/2019 of the Ld. CIT(A). In the course of appellate proceedings in Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, a compilation of case laws containing copies of the following orders was filed from the assessee’s side. ITA No.5735/Del/2019 Signatures Builders Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT Page 3 of 5 Sr. No. Particulars 1. BPTP Ltd. Vs. PCIT-(Central)-III, New Delhi [2020] 421 ITR 59 (DHC) 2. PCIT (Central)-III, New Delhi Vs. BPTP Ltd. [2021] 123 taxmann.com 394 (SC) 3. M/s Tulip Infratech Private Limited Vs. ACIT [ITA No. 6734/DEL/2019, A.Y. 2014-15] [ITA No. 6735/DEL/2019, A.Y. 2016-17] 4. Spaze Tower Pvt. Ltd. Vs. JCIT [ITA No. 5842/DEL/2019] 5. M/s Perfect Constech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Addl. CIT [ITA No. 6907/DEL/2019] 6. M/s Santure Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT [ITA No. 6844/DEL/2019] 7. Shiv Sai Infrastructure (P) Ltd. Vs. ACIT [ITA No. 5713/DEL/2019] 8. M/s Sarv Estate Pvt. Ltd. Vs. JCIT [ITA No.5337 & 5338/DEL/2019 (B.2) At the time of hearing before us, the representatives of both sides, the learend Counsel for the assessee as well as the learned Sr. DR for the Revenue were in agreement that the issue in dispute regarding levy of penalty u/s 271C of IT Act is squarely covered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue by aforesaid orders of Co-ordinate Benches of ITAT, Delhi in the aforesaid cases of M/s Tulip Infratech Private Limited Vs. ACIT (supra), Spaze Tower Pvt. Ltd. Vs. JCIT (supra), M/s Perfect Constech ITA No.5735/Del/2019 Signatures Builders Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT Page 4 of 5 Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Addl. CIT (supra), M/s Santure Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT (supra), Shiv Sai Infrastructure (P) Ltd. Vs. ACIT (supra) and M/s Sarv Estate Pvt. Ltd. Vs. JCIT (supra) in which, in similar facts and circumstances, it was held that penalty u/s 271C was not leviable. The learned Counsel for the assessee drew our attention to the fact that one of us (the Judicial Member) is the co-author of the aforesaid order in the case of Spaze Tower Pvt. Ltd. vs. JCIT (supra). Neither side has brought any distinguishing facts and circumstances or legal submissions for our consideration to persuade us to take a view different from the view taken by Co- ordinate Benches of ITAT, Delhi in the aforesaid orders passed in the cases of M/s Tulip Infratech Private Limited Vs. ACIT (supra), Spaze Tower Pvt. Ltd. Vs. JCIT (supra), M/s Perfect Constech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Addl. CIT (supra), M/s Santure Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT (supra), Shiv Sai Infrastructure (P) Ltd. Vs. ACIT (supra) and M/s Sarv Estate Pvt. Ltd. Vs. JCIT (supra). (B.2.1) In view of the foregoing, and respectfully following the aforesaid orders passed by Co-ordinate Benches of ITAT, Delhi; ITA No.5735/Del/2019 Signatures Builders Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT Page 5 of 5 we set aside the issue in the present appeal also in favour of the assessee and against Revenue. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned appellate order dated 13/05/2019 of the Ld. CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty amounting to Rs.6,62,100/- levied u/s 271C of the IT Act. (C) In the result, for statistical purposes, this appeal is allowed. Order pronounced on 25/08/2022. Sd/- Sd/- (KUL BHARAT) (ANADEE NATH MISSHRA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated:25/08/2022 Pk Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW, DELHI