Sanjay Aggarwal v. Income Tax Officer and Ors

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J. (ORAL):

¶1Issue notice.

1.1 Mr Kunal Sharma, learned senior standing counsel, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents/revenue.

¶2Given the direction that we propose to issue, Mr Sharma says, that counter-affidavit need not be filed, and that he will argue the matter based on the record presently available with the Court.

2.1 Therefore, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for hearing and final disposal, at this stage itself.

¶3This writ petition concerns Assessment Year (AY) 2009-10.

¶4The petitioner/assessee has assailed the order dated 26.12.2022 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [in short, "Tribunal"].

¶5Before the Tribunal, the petitioner/assessee had assailed the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short, "CIT(A)"] dated

29.12.2017.

¶6A perusal of the order dated 29.12.2017 passed by the CIT(A) would show, that before him, the petitioner/asseesee had preferred an appeal against the order dated 18.03.2014 passed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, "Act"] concerning the AY in issue.

¶7Via order dated 18.03.2014, the Assessing Officer (AO) had levied, on the petitioner, penalty amounting to Rs.27,34,356/-.

¶8Notably, before the CIT(A), there was no representation, either on behalf of the petitioner/assessee or the respondents/revenue.

¶9The petitioner avers, that the quantum levy imposed on the petitioner via assessment order dated 29.12.2011 was set aside by the Tribunal in the earlier round.

¶10It is claimed, that the matter was remanded to the AO. Furthermore, the petitioner avers, that after the remand, the AO passed a fresh order dated

29.06.2021.

10.1 As a result, the petitioner's assessed income was pegged at Rs.3,21,390/-. This order was passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 254 of the Act.

10.2 Furthermore, the AO has also directed levy of interest under Section234A, 234B and 234C of the Act.

10.3 In addition thereto, penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act have also been directed to be initiated.

¶11Insofar as the earlier assessment order dated 29.12.2011 was concerned, the AO had made an addition, with respect to unconfirmed sundry creditors to the extent of Rs.91,82,261/-. The petitioner's assessed income was pegged at Rs.95,06,940/-.

¶12As would be evident, the CIT(A)'s order dated 29.12.2017, which was set aside by the Tribunal via impugned order dated 26.12.2022 arose out of the earlier penalty order dated 18.03.2014, which in turn was founded on the assessment order dated 29.12.2011.

¶13It is the contention of Mr Dinesh Mohan Sinha, who appears on behalf of the petitioner, that the Tribunal should not have remanded the matter, as the assessment order dated 29.12.2011 was no longer in existence.

¶14Mr Sinha says, that pursuant to the assessment order dated

29.06.2021, up until now, no penalty proceedings have been triggered against the petitioner, although initiation of penalty proceedings were directed via the said order.

¶15Given these circumstances, the impugned order is set aside. Consequently, the order dated 18.03.2014 qua penalty proceedingswill collapse.

¶16It is, however, made clear that if penalty proceedings are taken out, pursuant to the assessment order dated 29.06.2021, the order passed by us today will not impact the same.

¶17The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶18Parties will act based on the digitally signed copy of the order.

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J

GIRISH KATHPALIA, J

MAY 22, 2023/aj

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Decision delivered on: 22.05.2023 + W.P.(C) 6914/2023 SANJAY AGGARWAL ..... Petitioner Through: Mr Dinesh Mohan Sinha and Mr Rajeev Kumar Sharma, Advs. versus INCOME TAX OFFICER AND ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr Kunal Sharma, Sr Standing Counsel. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA [Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)]