sitemapHome | Registration | Job Portal for CA's | Expert Exchange | Currency Converter | Post Matrimonial Ads | Post Property Ads
News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing | GST - Goods and Services Tax
Latest Expert Exchange
From the Courts »
 M/s A Daga Royal Arts vs. ITO (ITAT Jaipur)
 Gagan Infraenergy Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi)
 PCIT vs. Chawla Interbild Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd (Bombay High Court)
 All India Federation of Tax Practitioners vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai)
  Suresh M. Jamkhindikar vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court)
  Suresh M. Jamkhindikar vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court)
 Mangammal @ Thulasi vs. T.B. Raju (Supreme Court)
 Mahabir Industries vs. PCIT (Supreme Court)
  Oriental Bank Of Commerce Vs. Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax
  Suresh M. Jamkhindikar vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court)
  Union of India vs. Pirthwi Singh (Supreme Court)

Ms. Neeta Gupta, 75/5571, Ragher Pura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi Vs. ITO, Ward-33(4), New Delhi
December, 09th 2015
                DELHI BENCH `F', NEW DELHI
         Before Sh. N. K. Saini, AM And Smt. Beena Pillai, JM
             ITA No. 3479/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2002-03
Ms. Neeta Gupta,                  Vs ITO,
75/5571, Ragher Pura, Karol Bagh,    Ward-33(4),
New Delhi                            New Delhi
(APPELLANT)                          (RESPONDENT)
                 Assessee by : Sh. P. C. Yadav, Adv.
                 Revenue by :

Date of Hearing : 03.12.2015      Date of Pronouncement : 08.12.2015

Per N. K. Saini, AM:

     This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated
24.03.2015 of ld. CIT-XVII, New Delhi.

2.   The only grievance of the assessee in this appeal relates
to the confirmation of penalty of Rs. 4,22,770/- levied by the
AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter
referred to as the Act). During the course of hearing the ld.
Counsel for the assessee at the very outset stated that the
penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was levied in this case on the
basis of the additions made by the AO while framing the
assessment vide order dated 20.12.2007, which was confirmed
by the ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 31.10.2012. Thereafter, the
                                     2                    ITA No. 3479/Del/2015
                                                               Neeta Gupta

AO issued the notice dated 26.12.2012 to the assessee to show
cause as to why the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act may not
be levied. The AO did not accept the submission of the
assessee that the issue may be kept in abeyance till the
disposal of appeal of the ITAT and levied the penalty u/s
271(1)(c) of the Act amounting to Rs. 4,22,770/-. The said
penalty was sustained by the ld. CIT(A), however, on the
appeal of the assessee on quantum addition in ITA No.
239/Del/2013, the ITAT Delhi Bench, SMC-1, New Delhi vide
order dated 30.11.2015 held that the reopening was bad in law
and accordingly the assessment order dated 20.12.2007 was set
aside and as such there is no addition survives on the basis of
which the impugned penalty was levied.

3.   In his rival submissions the ld. DR supported the order of the
authorities below.

4.   We have considered the submissions of both the parties and
perused the material available on record. In the present case, it is noticed
that the assessment order dated 20.12.2007 which is the basis for levying
the impugned penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act has been held as bad in
law vide order dated 30.11.2015 in ITA No. 239/Del/2013 by the ITAT
Delhi Bench, SMC-1, New Delhi. Therefore, the impugned penalty does
not survive. In that view of the matter the impugned order is set aside
                                        3                    ITA No. 3479/Del/2015
                                                                  Neeta Gupta

and the penalty amounting to Rs. 4,22,770/- levied by the AO and
sustained by the ld. CIT(A) is deleted.

5.       In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
 (Order Pronounced in the Court on 08/12/2015)

       Sd/-                                            Sd/-
   (Beena Pillai)                                   (N. K. Saini)
JUDICIAL MEMBER                                ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Dated: 08/12/2015
Copy forwarded to:
1. Appellant
2. Respondent
3. CIT
4. CIT(Appeals)
                                                      ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2018 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Software Development Software Programming Software Engineering Custom Software Development Requirement Based Software Development Software Solutions Software Serv

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions