Latest Expert Exchange Queries
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) | Service Tax | Sales Tax | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Indirect Tax | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing
 
 
 
 
Popular Search: cpt :: ACCOUNTING STANDARD :: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company :: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4% :: form 3cd :: due date for vat payment :: TDS :: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS :: VAT Audit :: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT :: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes :: empanelment :: articles on VAT and GST in India :: list of goods taxed at 4% :: VAT RATES
 
 
From the Courts »
 Micro Spacematrix Solution P Ltd vs. ITO (ITAT Delhi)
 CIT vs. Greenfield Hotels & Estates Pvt. Ltd (Bombay High Court)
 IndiaBulls Financial Services Ltd vs. DCIT (Delhi High Court)
 Maharao Bhim Singh of Kota vs. CIT (Supreme Court)
 Ravneet Takhar Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax Ix And Ors.
 Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax
 Formula One World Championship Limited Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax, International Taxation-3 And Anr.
 Commissioner Of Income Tax International Taxation-3 Delhi Vs. Formula One World Championship Ltd. And Anr.
 Reliance Communications Ltd vs. DDIT (ITAT Mumbai)
  Sushila Devi vs. CIT (Delhi High Court)
 Ashok Prapann Sharma vs. CIT (Supreme Court)a

Suman Sharma 11, Sainik Vihar Pitampura New Delhi. Vs. ITO ward 25(1) New Delhi.
August, 28th 2014
                  IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
                        DELHI BENCH: G: NEW DELHI

              BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, JUDICIAL MEMBER
                 AND SHRI T.S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

                             ITA No. 2016/Del/2013
                            Assessment Year 1999-00

      Suman Sharma                         vs.    ITO
      11, Sainik Vihar                            ward 25(1)
      Pitampura                                    New Delhi.
      New Delhi.
      (PAN AWDPS1138A)
         (Appellant)                     (Respondent)

                Appellant by        :      Shri Satish Aggarwal, CA
                Respondent by       :      Shri Rakesh Kumar, Sr. DR

                                  ORDER

PER GEORGE GEORGE K, JUDICIAL MEMBER

       This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against CIT (A)

order dated 11.1.2013. The order of the CIT(A) emanated from the order of the

ITO Ward 25 (1), New Delhi passed u/s 271(1)(c), imposing a penalty of Rs.

6,24,340/-.

2.     Briefly stated the facts of the case are as follows :

      Assessee as an individual, filed her return of income for asstt. year 1999-

2000 on 8.2.2006 declaring an amount of Rs. 49,400/-. Assessment was

completed u/s 143 (3) read with section 148 vide order dated 23.3.2006 fixing a

total income of Rs. 21,67,800/-. The AO made an addition of Rs. 21,18,400/- on
                                                                                   2




                                                     ITA No. 2016/Del/13

account of unexplained bank deposits / loans. The assessee filed an appeal

before the CIT(A) who confirmed the assessment order.

3.   The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings on 7.3.2008 by issuance

of show cause notice to the assessee. Since the assessee was not able to prove

the identity and creditworthiness of the creditor and the genuineness of the

transaction, the Assessing Officer imposed a penalty of Rs. 6,24,340/- u/s

271(1)© of the Act. The assesee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) against the

imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal

since there was no appearance on the part of the assesee during the hearing

dates    The assessee being aggrieved has filed the present appeal before us

raising following grounds of appeal :-


         1. "The order of the CIT(A) in confirming the levy of penalty u/s
            271(1) (c) amounting to Rs. 6,24,340/- is arbitrary, biased,
            bad in law and facts and circumstances of the case.

        2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the levy of
            penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of Rs. 6,24,340/- disregarding the explanation
            of the appellant.

        3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c)
           as the appellant had neither furnished inaccurate particulars of its
           income nor concealed its income."

4.      The Ld. Authorised Representative of the assessee submitted the quantum

assessment was set aside by the Hon'ble ITAT in ITA No. 776/2007 by order

dated 25.7.2008. It was submitted that pursuant to the Tribunal order, fresh

assessment order was passed on 30.12.2009 and penalty proceedings u/s
                                                                              3

                                                     ITA No. 2016/Del/13

271(1)© of the Act was separately initiated in the said assessment order. It was

submitted the present penalty order which arise out of the original assessment

order dated 23.3.2006 does not survive and same need to be quashed.

5.    Ld. DR present was duly heard.




6.    We have heard rival submission and perused the material on record. The

present penalty order emanates from the assessment order dated 23.3.2006.

The assessment order dated 23.3.2006 has been set aside by the Tribunal in its

order dated 25.7.2008 (ITA No. 776/2007). Pursuant to the Tribunal order in ITA

No. 776/2007 dated 25.7.2008 fresh assessment order was passed u/s 143 (3) /

148 / 254 vide order dated 30.12.2009. In the fresh assessment order, penalty

proceedings u/s 271(1)© was separately initiated for concealment of income.

Therefore the present penalty on the basis of the original assessment order

dated 23.3.2006 does not survive for adjudication and the same is quashed. It

ordered accordingly.

7.    In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed.

       This decision was pronounced in the open court on 22nd August, 2014.

                  sd/-                                        sd/-

            (T.S. KAPOOR)                                ( GEORGE GEORGE K)
         ACCOUNTANT MEMBER                                  JUDICIAL MEMBER

Date 22nd August, 2014

*Veena

Copy of order forwarded to:
  1. Appellant
                                           4

                  ITA No. 2016/Del/13

2.   Respondent
3.   CIT(A)
4.   CIT
5.   DR
                   By Order

                  Asstt. Registrar, ITAT

 
 
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2016 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Binarysoft Technologies - Our Vision

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