Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Redtopaz Real Estates Pvt. Ltd., New ... vs Assessee

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal23 January 2015

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

Where the disallowance that formed the sole basis of a penalty under section 271(1)(c) has been deleted in quantum proceedings, the penalty levied on that disallowance cannot survive, because its foundation has gone.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNALDELHI BENCH "F" NEW DELHIBEFORE SHRI S.V. MEHROTRA : ACCOUNTANT MEMBERANDSHRI H.S. SIDHU : JUDICIAL MEMBERITA no. 872/Del/2013A.Y. 2007-08Redtopaz Real Estates Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Income-tax Officer,1-E, Jhandewalan Extension, 15(3), New Delhi.Naaz Cinema Complex,New Delhi-110055.PAN: AADCR 6634 H( Appellant ) ( Respondent )Appellant by : Shri R.S. Singhvi CARespondent by : Shri Vikram Sahay Sr. DRDate of hearing : 07-01-2015Date of order : 23-01-2015.ORDERPER S.V. MEHROTRA, A.M:-

This appeal, preferred by the assessee, is directed against the order dated 17-04-2013, passed by the CIT(Appeals)-XVIII, New Delhi in appeal no. 430/11-12, sustaining the penalty of Rs. 14,50,790/- levied by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961, relating to A.Y. 2007-08.

2. Ld. counsel for the assessee at the outset contended that in quantum appeal, the ITAT Delhi Bench 'F' in ITA no. 1501/Del/2011, vide order dated 12-5-2014 has deleted the disallowance amounting to Rs. 40,95,375/- made u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act, which was the subject matter of initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.

3. Ld. DR was fair enough to admit the aforesaid factual position.

4. We have heard rival contentions and perused the material available on record. Admittedly, in quantum appeal, the disallowance made u/s 40(a)(ia) of the I.T. Act, which was the subject matter of imposition of penalty in question, has been deleted by the ITAT. Since the very base for imposition of penalty in question has gone, the penalty in question have no legs to stand. Accordingly, penalty of Rs. 14,50,790/- levied by the AO and sustained by the ld. CIT(A) u/s 271(1)(c), is cancelled.

5. In the result, assessee's appeal is allowed.

Order pronounced in open court on 23-01-2015.

Sd/- Sd/- ( H.S. SIDHU ) ( S.V. MEHROTRA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 23-01-2015. MP Copy to : 1. Assessee 2. AO 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR

This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.

Research this judgment with Miss Lucy

Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.

Try Miss Lucy free