ITO ward-54(5), New Delhi V. Roshan Lal Sharma, New Delhi

ITA 7997/DEL/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 106 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2327 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 8 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-06-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 30-09-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 271(1)(c); 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘F’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. BRR KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.7997/Del/2019 Assessment Year: 2011-12 ITO, Ward-54(5), New Delhi Vs. Roshan Lal Sharma, C-4/187, Dayanand Colony, Lajpat Nagar-4, New Delhi PIN: 1100 24 PAN :AUQPS1473F (Appellant) (Respondent) ORDER PER SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This is an appeal by the assessee against order dated 18.07.2019 of learned Commissioner (Appeals)-35, New Delhi, deleting the penalty imposed of Rs.53,72,061 under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2011-12. Appellant by Shri Ratnesh Kumar Gupta, CA Assessee by Ms. Indu Sen, SR. DR Date of hearing 28.06.2022 Date of pronouncement 28.06.2022 2 ITA No.7997/Del./2019 2. At the outset, learned authorized representative appearing for the assessee submitted, the addition based on which penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was imposed stands deleted in the quantum proceedings. Thus, he submitted the penalty imposed could not have survived. 3. Learned Departmental Representative relied upon the grounds raised. 4. We have considered the rival submissions and perused material available on record. 5. On a reading of paragraph 4.1 of the impugned order of learned Commissioner (Appeals), it becomes very much clear that based on the addition made in an assessment order passed under Section 144 of the Act, the Assessing Officer proceeded to impose penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. However, while deciding assessee’s appeal against the assessment order passed under Section 144 of the Act, learned Commissioner (Appeals) had deleted the additions made. No material has been brought on record by the Revenue to demonstrate that the order passed by learned Commissioner (Appeals) in the quantum proceeding has been reversed. Thus, in absence of any 3 ITA No.7997/Del./2019 subsisting addition, the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act cannot survive. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the decision of learned Commissioner (Appeals). Ground raised is dismissed. 6. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 28 th June, 2022. Sd/- Sd/- ( DR. BRR KUMAR ) (SAKTIJIT DEY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 28 th June, 2022. Mohan Lal Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi 4 ITA No.7997/Del./2019 Sl. No. Particulars Date 1. Date of dictation (Order drafted through Dragon software): 28.06.2022 2. Date on which the draft of order is placed before the Dictating Member: 28.06.2022 3. Date on which the draft of order is placed before the other Member: 4. Date on which the approved draft of order comes to the Sr. PS/PS: 28 .06.2022 5. Date of which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for pronouncement: 28.06.2022 6. Date on which the final order received after having been singed/pronounced by the Members: 28 .06.2022 7. Date on which the final order is uploaded on the website of ITAT: 30.06.2022 8. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk 30.06.2022 9. Date on which files goes to the Head Clerk: 10. Date on which file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order: 11. Date of dispatch of order: