DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS)-1(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. LAXMINARAYAN MANDIR TRUST, MUMBAI

ITA 5653/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 November 2025AY 2013-14Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), MS. PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that since the additions in the quantum assessment were ultimately deleted by the ITAT, the penalty order passed under Section 221(1) would not survive. Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the order of the CIT(A) which had directed the recalculation of the demand.

What were the facts?

The revenue appealed against the order of the CIT(A) which partly allowed the assessee's appeal against a penalty order under Section 221(1). The penalty was levied for default in payment of tax demand arising from additions made by the Assessing Officer. The additions themselves were later deleted by the ITAT in quantum assessment proceedings.

What were the issues?

Whether a penalty under Section 221(1) for default in tax payment can survive when the underlying demand/additions leading to the penalty have been deleted by a higher authority.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 221,Section 254(1),Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER& MS. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Physical hearing) DCIT (Exemptions) – 1(1), Mumbai Mumbai – 400026. Mumbai – 400056. [PAN: AAATL2061J] Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee

Assessee by Shri B.N. Rao, AR Revenue by Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr. DR Date of Institution 10.09.2025 Date of hearing 13.11.2025 Date of pronouncement 13.11.2025

Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act

PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

1.

This appeal by revenue is directed against the order of ld. CIT(A) dated

07.07.

2025 for A.Y. 2013-14. The revenue has raised following grounds of appeal:

“1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in partly allowing the appeal of the assessee against the penalty order passed u/s 221(1) of the Act, without appreciating that the assessee had defaulted in payment of demand amounting to 11,71,89,552/"

2.

"On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that t

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 221

All 136 judgments and leading authorities on Section 221 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →