Full Text
2&3
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME , „ .
TAX (CENTRAL)-1 . ..... Appelknt
ThroughiMr Ruchir Bhatia, Senior Standing Counsel with Mr Puneet Rai, Junior Standing
Counsel
Through; Mr Shashwat Bajpae and Mr Sharad Agarwal, Advocates v^lfA^02/2017
PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-l Appellant
Through; Mr Ruchir Bhatia, Senior Standing Counsel with Mr Puneet Rai, Junior Standing
Counsel
Through: Mr Shashwat Bajpae and Mr Sharad Agarwal, Advocates
ORDER o/o 18.07.2017 TM 1S287/2017 (exemption'> in ITA 402/2017
1.Allowed, subject to all justexceptions.
2017:DHC:8736-DB
JUDGMENT
2. These two appeals are directed by the Revenue against a common order dated October, 2016 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ('ITAT') in ITA Nos. 829/Del./2014 and 1045/Del./2014 for the Assessment Year ('AY') 2009 - 2010. The ITAT vide the impugned order set aside the penalty imposed on the Respondent - Assessee under Section 140A(3) of theIncome TaxAct, 1961 ('the Act').
3. Although the said provision does not provide for any penalty, the Revenue sought tojustify thepenalty byinvoking Section 221(1) ofthe Act. The ITAT disagreed with the above submissions ofthe Revenue by pointing out that wrong invocation of the provisions had only one consequence i.e. cancellation ofthe order ofthe Assessing Officer ('AO').
4. There was no question of invocation of Section 221 (1) of the Act when AO in fact did not proceed onthat basis at all. The Court, therefore, find no infirmity inthe impugned order passed by the ITAT. No substantial question of law arises for consideration.
5. The appeals are accordingly dismissed. JULY 18, 2017 rd ITA 401/2017 & ITA 402/2017 S.MURALIDHAR, J PRATHIBA M. StoH, J Page 2 of[2]