Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi
Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... vs Narendra Gehlaut, New Delhi on 7 March, 2018
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCHES "E" : DELHI
BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER
AND
SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
ITA.No.1273/Del./2015
Assessment Year 2006-2007
The ACIT, Circle-31(1), Room
No.1302, 13th Floor, E-2, Shri Narendra Gehlaut,
Pratykshya Kar Bhawan, vs 296, Forest Lane, Neb Sarai,
Shayama Prasad Mukherjee Sainik Farms,
Civic Centre, Jawaharlal New Delhi - 110 068.
Nehru Marg, Minto Road, PAN AAZPG9630K
New Delhi-002.
(Appellant) (Respondent)
For Revenue : Shri S. R. Senapati, Sr. D.R.
For Assessee : Shri Manoj Singhal, Advocate.
Date of Hearing : 05.03.2018
Date of Pronouncement : 07.03.2018
ORDER
PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M.
This appeal by Revenue has been directed against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-11, New Delhi, dated 29th December, 2014, for the A.Y. 2006-2007, challenging the deletion of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961.
2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the A.O. passed the assessment order under section 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 for the 2 ITA.No.1273/Del./2015 Shri Narendra Gehlaut, New Delhi.
assessment year under appeal on 30th December, 2008 at an income of Rs.9.11 crore as against the returned income of Rs.4.43 crore. The assessee had claimed to be engaged in the business of hiring of earth moving equipments. Besides this business activity, assessee was also engaged in share trading activity and trading in commodity futures. However, while passing the assessment order, it was held by the A.O. that assessee's dominant/main business pertains to stock/commodities market and not that of hiring of mining machinery and equipments. The A.O. relied upon several facts and observed that the share transactions entered into by the assessee were in the nature of business enterprise and not in the nature of capital investments as claimed by the assessee. Therefore, the income of the assessee was assessed as profit and gains derived from share trading as 'Business Income' as against 'Capital Gains' claimed by the assessee. The A.O. on the same levied the penalty.
3. The assessee contended before Ld. CIT(A) that assessee preferred appeal before ITAT against the orders of the authorities below which have been decided in favour of the assessee vide order dated 16th December, 2016 in ITA.No.1648/Del./2010. The Ld. CIT(A) reproduced the final findings of the order of the Tribunal in 3 ITA.No.1273/Del./2015 Shri Narendra Gehlaut, New Delhi.
the impugned order and held that since ITAT has decided the issue in favour of the assessee, therefore, penalty is not leviable.
4. After considering the rival contentions, we do not find any merit in the departmental appeal. The assessee has filed copy of the order of the Tribunal whereby the quantum addition have been decided in favour of the assessee. Therefore, no penalty is leviable. No infirmity have been pointed-out in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in cancelling the penalty.
5. In the result, Departmental Appeal is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open Court.
Sd/- Sd/-
(WASEEM AHMED) (BHAVNESH SAINI)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Delhi, Dated 07th March, 2018
VBP/-
Copy to
1. The appellant
2. The respondent
3. CIT(A) concerned
4. CIT concerned
5. D.R. ITAT 'E' Bench, Delhi
6. Guard File.
// BY Order //
Assistant Registrar : ITAT Delhi Benches :
Delhi.