High Court of Delhi Dismisses ITA 335/2023 on Penalty Imposition under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961

Case Name:

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-2 v. Gopal Kumar Goyal

ITA 335/2023

Key Takeaways:

1. The High Court of Delhi dismissed ITA 335/2023, which concerned the Assessment Year (AY) 2004-05.
2. The appeal was filed by the appellant/revenue against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) regarding the imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, 1961.
3. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer (AO) had not clearly indicated the ground on which the penalty had been levied.
4. The Tribunal referred to several judgments that had already covered this issue against the appellant/revenue.
5. The High Court, considering a previous order in a related appeal, concluded that no substantial question of law arose for consideration in ITA 335/2023.
6. Therefore, the appeal was closed.

Case Synopsis:

In the case of ITA 335/2023, the High Court of Delhi dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant/revenue against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal) regarding the imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, 1961. The appeal concerned the Assessment Year (AY) 2004-05.

The appellant/revenue filed an application seeking condonation of a delay of 220 days in re-filing the appeal. The respondent/assessee had no objection to the delay being condoned, and the court ordered accordingly.

The issue before the Tribunal was whether the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) (of Income Tax Act, 1961) of the Income-tax Act had been correctly imposed. The record showed that the Assessing Officer (AO) had not clearly indicated the ground on which the penalty had been levied, i.e., whether it was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal found that this issue had already been covered against the appellant/revenue in several judgments.

The Tribunal disposed of the cross-appeals filed by the parties in the impugned order dated 30.03.2022. In a related appeal titled Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-2 v. Gopal Kumar Goyal, concerning the same AY 2004-05, the High Court had already concluded that no substantial question of law arose for consideration. Therefore, the same fate was expected for ITA 335/2023.

Considering the previous order in the related appeal, the High Court concluded that no substantial question of law arose for consideration in ITA 335/2023. As a result, the appeal was closed.

Parties were instructed to act based on the digitally signed copy of the order.

FAQ:

Q1: What was the issue in ITA 335/2023?

A1: The issue in ITA 335/2023 was whether the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 had been correctly imposed.

Q2: What was the finding of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal)?

A2: The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer (AO) had not clearly indicated the ground on which the penalty had been levied.

Q3: What did the High Court of Delhi conclude?

A3: The High Court of Delhi concluded that no substantial question of law arose for consideration in ITA 335/2023, based on a previous order in a related appeal.

Q4: What was the outcome of ITA 335/2023?

A4: ITA 335/2023 was dismissed by the High Court of Delhi, as no substantial question of law arose for consideration.

CM No.32809/2023 [Application filed on behalf of the appellant seeking

condonation of delay of 220 days in re-filing the appeal]

1. This is an application filed by the appellant/revenue seeking condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal.

1.1 According to the appellant/revenue, there is a delay of two hundred

and twenty (220) days in re-filing the appeal.

2. Ms Monika Aggarwal, who appears on behalf of the respondent/assessee, says that she would have no objection if the delay in refiling is condoned.

2.1 It is ordered accordingly.

3. The application is, accordingly, disposed of.

ITA 335/2023

4. This appeal concerns Assessment Year (AY) 2004-05.

5. Via the instant appeal, the appellant/revenue seeks to assail the order

dated 30.03.2022 and corrigendum dated 08.04.2022 issued by the Income

Tax Appellate Tribunal [in short, “Tribunal”].

6. The issue that arose for consideration before the Tribunal was whether

the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) (of Income Tax Act, 1961) [in short,

“Act”] had been correctly imposed.

7. The record shows, and something that is not in dispute, is that the

Assessing officer (AO) had not indicated, with clarity, the ground on which

penalty had been levied i.e., on account of concealment of income or

furnishing inaccurate particulars.

7.1 Thus, according to the Tribunal, this issue already stood covered

against the appellant/revenue in several judgments that have been referred to in paragraph 14 of the impugned order dated 30.03.2022.

8. The Tribunal, via impugned order dated 30.03.2022, disposed of the

cross-appeals filed by the parties herein.

8.1 It is in this context that ITA No. 345/2023, titled Pr. Commissioner of

Income Tax (Central)-2 v. Gopal Kumar Goyal, concerning the very same

AY, i.e., AY 2004-05 came up for adjudication before this court. The said

appeal preferred by the appellant/revenue was closed with a detailed order

concluding that no substantial question of law arose for consideration.

9. Given the aforesaid circumstances, the same fate will follow insofar

as this appeal is concerned.

10. Accordingly, the appeal is closed as no substantial question of law

arises for our consideration.

11. Parties will act based on the digitally signed copy of the order.

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

GIRISH KATHPALIA, J

NOVEMBER 6, 2023