The Delhi High Court dismissed the Revenue's appeal against an ITAT order that upheld the deletion of a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The court found no justification to interfere given the prior findings.
Appeal failed and dismissed along with the pending application.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~33
PRINCIPAL COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX 7 ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Aseem Chawla, SSC with Ms. Pratishtha Chaudhary & Mr. Naveen Rohila, Advs.
versus
UNITECH ACACIA PROJECTS PVT. LTD ..... Respondent Through: None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
O R D E R % 15.03.2024
“ 7 . We have heard the learned DR and perused the material available on record. In the present appeal the grounds raised by Revenue is with respect to the deletion of penalty levied for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. We find that CIT(A) while deleting the penalty has noted that non-deduction of tax was neither an act of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income nor concealment of income but rather it was a technical and venial breach in nature. As far as the levy of penalty on interest on late payment of TDS is concerned, while deleting the
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/03/2024 at 12:18:23
penalty CIT(A) has given a finding that interest expense on TDS is a debatable issue and assessee had established its bonafide for the purpose of claiming deduction of expenditure on interest on delayed deposit of TDS. He relying on the decisions cited in his order held that penalty cannot not be levied on a debatable issue. Before us, Revenue has not pointed out any fallacy in the findings of CIT(A). In such a situation, we find no reason to interfere with the order of CIT(A). Thus the ground of Revenue dismissed .”
YASHWANT VARMA, J.
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J.
MARCH 15, 2024/ kk
This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/03/2024 at 12:18:23
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Revenue can be permitted to impose penalties under Section 271(1)(c) when the penalty was previously deleted by the CIT(A) and upheld by the ITAT.
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Principal Commissioner of Income Tax
UNITECH ACACIA PROJECTS PVT. LTD
Yashwant Varma
Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
