Sushil Kumar Bhati v. ITO - Taxpublishers.in

Case Laws Analysis
REFERRED CIT v. Sania Mirza 2013 TaxPub(DT) 1187 (AP-HC)
REFERRED CIT v. Sidhartha Enterprises 2010 TaxPub(DT) 0601 (P&H-HC)
REFERRED CIT v. Pitambardas Dulichand 2005 TaxPub(DT) 0125 (MP-HC)

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT


The Tax Publishers2020 TaxPub(DT) 2218 (Del-Trib) IN THE ITAT, DELHI BENCH SUCHITRA KAMBLE, J.M. & B.R.R. KUMAR, A.M. Sushil Kumar Bhati v. ITO ITA No. 2819/Del/2018 8 May, 2020 In favour of assessee. Assessee by: Vanshika Taneja, Adv. Revenue by: Pradeep Singh Gautam, Sr. DR ORDER *Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, A.M.* The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of learned Commissioner (Appeals), Faridabad dated 5-3-2018. 2. Following grounds have been raised by the assessee :-- 1. Hon Commissioner (Appeals) erred in upholding the order of Hon assessing officer passed under section 271 (1)(c) of the Income Tax Act,1961 which was opened against the law under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and not considered by Hon Commissioner (Appeals). The assessee has not concealed any income. Penalty under section 271 (1)(c) is illegally imposed by the Hon assessing officer which is bad- in- law and unjustified. It may be noted that Hon assessing officer during the assessment proceedings under section 143 (3) agreed with our submissions and hence had not initiated the penalty proceedings under section 271 (1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Later on, the penalty proceedings under section 271 (1)(c) of the Income Tax Act was initiated illegally by a direction under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT

The Tax Publishers2020 TaxPub(DT) 2218 (Del-Trib)

IN THE ITAT, DELHI BENCH

SUCHITRA KAMBLE, J.M. & B.R.R. KUMAR, A.M.

Sushil Kumar Bhati v. ITO

ITA No. 2819/Del/2018

8 May, 2020

In favour of assessee.

Assessee by: Vanshika Taneja, Adv.

Revenue by: Pradeep Singh Gautam, Sr. DR

ORDER

Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, A.M.

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of learned Commissioner (Appeals), Faridabad dated 5-3-2018.

2. Following grounds have been raised by the assessee :--

1. Hon Commissioner (Appeals) erred in upholding the order of Hon assessing officer passed under section 271 (1)(c) of the Income Tax Act,1961 which was opened against the law under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and not considered by Hon Commissioner (Appeals). The assessee has not concealed any income. Penalty under section 271 (1)(c) is illegally imposed by the Hon assessing officer which is bad- in- law and unjustified. It may be noted that Hon assessing officer during the assessment proceedings under section 143 (3) agreed with our submissions and hence had not initiated the penalty proceedings under section 271 (1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Later on, the penalty proceedings under section 271 (1)(c) of the Income Tax Act was initiated illegally by a direction under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.