Punjab Metal Store - Appeal of the assessee is allowed as penalty charged has been deleted

Last updated: 09 February 2021

Court :
ITAT New Delhi

Brief :
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT (Appeals)-20, New Delhi, dated 18.03.2019 wherein the ld. CIT (Appeals) has confirmed the levy of the penalty of Rs.6,09,970/- under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) levied by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 63 (3) New Delhi, dated 29.09.2016 for the Assessment Year 2008-09.

Citation :
ITA No. 3820/Del/2019

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH “SMC-1”: NEW DELHI

BEFORE SHR BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER
AND
SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
(Through Video Conferencing)

ITA No. 3820/Del/2019
(Assessment Year: 2008-09)

M/s. Punjab Metal Store,
2196/4, Bagichi Raghunath,
Sadar Bazar, Delhi – 110 006.
PAN: ACKPN1164A
(Appellant)

Vs.

ITO,
Ward-63 (3),
New Delhi
(Respondent)

Assessee by : Shri Umang Luthra, Adv.;
Department by : Shri Rajesh Kumar, Sr. DR;
Date of Hearing 03/02/2021
Date of pronouncement 03/02/2021

O R D E R

PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M.

1. This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT (Appeals)-20, New Delhi, dated 18.03.2019 wherein the ld. CIT (Appeals) has confirmed the levy of the penalty of Rs.6,09,970/- under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) levied by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 63 (3) New Delhi, dated 29.09.2016 for the Assessment Year 2008-09.

2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:-

1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)} is bad both in the eyes of law and on facts.

2. On the facts and circumstance of the case, the Learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in laws in confirming the action of the AO levying penalty amounting to Rs. 6,09,970/- u/s 271(1 )(c) of the Income-tax Act.

3. On the facts and circumstance of the case, the Learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in laws in confirming penalty on the additions of Rs. 19,74,026/- made on account of bogus purchases in the order passed under section 143(3)/147 of the Income-tax Act.

4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming penalty levied by AO despite the fact that the additions itself are not tenable in law.

To know more in details find the attachment file