AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
ORDER
PER MADHUMITA ROY, J.M.:
The matter relates to order passed by the ld. CIT(A) u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act arising out of the order of penalty passed by the Ld. AO on account of disallowance of employees contribution/ESI. The issue since debatable and the legal position in this regard that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is not leviable under this facts and circumstances of the matter, the ld. AR relied upon a judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in (2023) 143 taxmann.com 178 (SC). Such fact of issue being settled by the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has not be able to be controverted by the ld. DR. We have further considered the judgment passed by the Co-ordinate bench in Ansal Housing Ltd. Vs. ACIT in ITA No. 1158/Del/2024 wherein on the identical facts and circumstances of the matter relying upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the penalty order levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was deleted.
Thus considering the entire aspect of the matter in the identical facts and circumstances of the case, since the issue on which the order impugned u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is found to be datable, the same is not sustainable in the eyes of law and thus deleted.
Appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed.