Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank, Rohtak V. ACIT, Rohtak Circle , Rohtak

ITA 677/DEL/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 105 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9802 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-01-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 30-01-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PARMITA BISWAS
• Section: 32; 147; 131; 68; 246; 69; 145; 27; 148; 54; 37; 6; 56; 263; 63; 132; 12; 28; 271(1)(c); 144; 10; 90; 154; 2; 11; 15; 271(1)(b); 139; 92

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : G : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.677/Del/2019 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank, SHGB House, Plot No.1, Sector-3, Rohtak, Haryana. PAN: AAKAS1464M Vs ACIT, Rohtak Circle, Rohtak. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Vivek Gupta, Advocate Revenue by : Smt. Parmita Biswas, CIT, DR Date of Hearing : 24.01.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 24.01.2022 ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 30.11.2018 of the CIT(A), Rohtak, relating to assessment year 2012-13. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under:- “1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and provisions of the law, the order u/s 271(1)(c) dated 30/03/2017 of the Ld AO and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A), being passed in the name of the non-existence assessee, is void ab initio and therefore the same needs to be quashed. ITA No.677/Del/2019 2 2. That without prejudice to ground no 1 above and on the facts and circumstances of the case and provisions of the law, Ld AO as well as Ld CIT(A) erred in levying/ confirming the penalty under action 271(1)(c) despite of existence of non curable defects in issuance of notice under section 271(1)(c) by the Ld AO. 3. That without prejudice to ground no 1 and 2 above and on the facts and circumstances of the case & provisions of the law, the Ld CIT(A) erred in sustaining the penalty under section 271(1)(c) in respect of Rs. 20,39,000/- towards provision for fraud cases.” 3. The ld. counsel for the assessee, at the outset, filed a copy of the order of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case in quantum appeal vide ITA No.1073/Del/2016, order dated 28 th August, 2020 for AY 2012-13 and submitted that the Tribunal has quashed the assessment, therefore, the penalty does not survive. He accordingly submitted that the grounds raised by the assessee should be allowed. 4. The ld. DR, on the other hand, fairly conceded that the Tribunal has quashed the assessment. 5. After hearing both the sides, we find, the Tribunal in assessee’s own case vide ITA No.1073/Del/2016, order dated 28 th August, 2020, has quashed the assessment. Therefore, the penalty does not survive. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed. ITA No.677/Del/2019 3 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 24.01.2022. Sd/- Sd/- (N.K. CHOUDHRY) (R.K. PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 24 th January, 2022. dk Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asstt. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi