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: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes :: due date for vat payment :: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company :: empanelment :: VAT Audit :: TDS :: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS :: cpt :: VAT RATES :: ACCOUNTING STANDARD :: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT :: list of goods taxed at 4% :: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4% :: form 3cd :: articles on VAT and GST in India
 
 
From the Courts »
 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
  Vatsala Shenoy vs. JCIT (Supreme Court)
  Vatsala Shenoy vs. JCIT (Supreme Court)
 M.K.Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pr.Commissioner Of Income Tax-06
 Arshia Ahmed Qureshi Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-21

DCIT, Central Circle-25, Room No. 331, ARA Centre, Jhandewalan Extn., 440, New Delhi Vs. Prem Kumar Arora, Prop. Nanak Enterprises, Katra Ishwar Bhawan, Khari Baoli, Delhi
September, 10th 2015
            IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
                  DELHI BENCH: `F ': NEW DELHI

           BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER
                              AND
         SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

                      ITA Nos. 3433 & 3434/Del/2013
                    Assessment Years: 2001-02 & 2006-07

DCIT, Central Circle-25,              Vs.         Prem Kumar Arora,
Room No. 331, ARA Centre,                         Prop. Nanak Enterprises,
Jhandewalan Extn.,                                440, Katra Ishwar Bhawan,
New Delhi                                         Khari Baoli, Delhi
                                                   (PAN: AAHPK9790L)
    (Appellant)                                   (Respondent)

   Appellant by : Sh. Vivek Wadekar, CIT(DR)
   Respondent by : Sh. Sanjeev Bindal, CA

                                       Date of hearing: 27.08.2015
                                       Date of pronouncement: 09.09.2015

                                   ORDER

PER INTURI RAMA RAO, A.M.:

      These two appeals by the Revenue are directed against different orders of

CIT(A), each dated 20.03.2013 passed for the assessment years 2001-02 and

2006-07 respectively. Since common grounds of appeal were raised in both the

appeals, we proceed to decide the appeals by a consolidated order. The Revenue

raised the following grounds of appeal in ITA No. 3433/Del/2013:




"On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in:
  1. The order of the CIT(A) is not correct in law and facts.
  2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in law
      & fact in deleting the penalty imposed by the AO amounting to Rs.
      11,04,885/- for concealment of income u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961.
  3. The appellant craves to add, alter or amend any/all of the grounds of
      appeal before or during the course of the hearing of the appeal.
                                          2

2.      Brief facts of the case are that a search & seizure operations under Section

132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") were conducted in the

premises of the appellant on 22.11.2006. As a result of which certain documents

were found and based on this incriminating material, the Assessing Officer

issued notice under Section 153A of the Act. In response to which, the

respondent assessee filed return of income disclosing undisclosed income for

various assessment years i.e. 2001-02 and 2007-08 and the assessment order

was passed under Section 153A. For the assessment year 2001-02, an addition of

Rs. 35,03,118/- and for the assessment year 2006-07 Rs. 57,50,853/- was made.

This addition was confirmed by the CIT(A) and, however, on further appeal

before the ITAT, the additions were deleted. While the matter stood thus, the

Assessing Officer proceeded with the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of

the Act and levied the penalty of Rs. 11,04,885/- for the assessment year 2001-

02 and Rs. 16,25,609/- for the assessment year 2006-07. On appeal before the

CIT(A), the CIT(A) following the order of the Tribunal deleting the penalty for

the assessment year 2004-05,        allowed the appeal filed by the respondent

assessee vide para 4.2 of his order, which reads as under:

     "4.2        I have considered the assessment and penalty orders, order of
     the Hon'ble ITAT and the submissions filed. The facts of the case are the
     same as for AY 2004-05 wherein the penalty imposed u/s 241(1)(c) was
     deleted by the Hon'ble ITAT vide its order dated 09.03.2012 cancelled the
     order of CIT(A) confirming the penalty and deleted the said penalty. It has
     been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Kamlakshi
     Finance Corp. Ltd. [AIR 1992 SC 711] and Khalid Automobiles Vs.
     Union of India [4 SCC (Suppl.) 653] that the decisions of the
     jurisdictional High Court and the Tribunal are binding on the income-tax
                                          3

     authorities without any reservation. Following the decision of the Hon'ble
     ITAT in the appellant's own case, the ground of appeal is to be allowed."

3.      Since the CIT(A) followed the decision of the Tribunal in its own case

for the assessment year 2004-05 where similar additions were made, we do

not find any reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(A). Hence, the

grounds of appeal filed by the Revenue are dismissed.

4.      In the result, both the appeals are dismissed.

        The decision is pronounced in the open court on 9 th September, 2015.



            Sd/-                                         Sd/-
     (H.S. SIDHU)                                 (INTURI RAMA RAO)
  JUDICIAL MEMBER                                ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Dated: 9th September, 2015.
RK/-
Copy forwarded to:
1.    Appellant
2.    Respondent
3.    CIT
4.    CIT(A)
5.    DR
                                                  Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi

 
 
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2016 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Binarysoft Technologies - Privacy Policy

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