Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi
Gurjeet Singh, New Delhi vs Assessee on 25 February, 2016
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH: 'SMC-I' NEW DELHI
BEFORE SMT DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER
I.T.A .No.-4879/Del/2015
(ASSESSMENT YEAR-2004-05)
Gurjeet Singh, vs ITO,
C/o-U.S.Aggarwal, 505, Ward-26(1),
Maitri Apartments Sector-9, New Delhi New Delhi
PAN: AVIPS7890K (RESPONDENT)
(APPELLANT)
Assessee by Sh.V.S.Aggarwal, Adv.
Revenue by Mr. Manoj Kumar Chopra, Sr.DR
Date of Hearing 10.02.2016
Date of Pronouncement 25.02.2016
ORDER
The present appeal has been filed by the assessee assailing the correctness of the order dated 12.01.2015 of CIT(A)-15, Delhi pertaining to 2004-05 AY wherein the penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) by the AO has been upheld. The Ld. AR placed on record copy of the order dated 18.12.2015 in ITA No.535/Del/2014 and relying thereon submitted that the ITAT has quashed the assessment re- opened by the AO u/s 147 holding it to be without application of mind and also without any service. Accordingly it was his submission that since the additions made do not stand in the eyes of law, the penalty order confirmed in appeal deserves to be quashed. In support of the said prayer, attention was invited to page 10 para 11 of the order of the ITAT in the quantum proceedings:-
11. "In view of the above discussion, facts and circumstances of the case as well as decisions cited above, the reopening in the case of the assessee is without any application of mind and further there is no service of notice issued 148. Therefore, the reopening is not sustainable and consequently the same is quashed."
I.T.A .No.-4879/Del/2015
2. Considering the order of the ITAT in the quantum proceedings, the Ld. AR had nothing further to state as the additions admittedly stood deleted as the assessment itself was quashed.
3. Having heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record, I am of the view that where the proceedings u/s 143(3)/147 have been quashed by the Co-ordinate Bench the occasion to consider the merits of penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) upheld by the CIT(A) on the additions made to the income of the assessee at Rs.5,25,000/- does not arise. Accordingly in the absence of any argument to the contrary, it is held that the penalty proceedings do not survive. The impugned order is set aside and the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
4. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. The order is pronounced in the open court on 25th of February, 2016.
Sd/-
(DIVA SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated:25/02/2016 *Amit Kumar* Copy forwarded to:
1. Appellant
2. Respondent
3. CIT
4. CIT(Appeals)
5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI Page 2 of 2