ABDULHAMID ABDULMAJID NATHANI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 22(1), LALBAUG PAREL

PDF · subscribers
ITA 9093/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 April 2026AY 2012-133 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that since the quantum addition, which formed the basis for the penalty, was deleted, the penalty itself is no longer sustainable. Therefore, the penalty imposed by the AO is deleted.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal concerns a penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The penalty was consequential to an addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO) which was later deleted by a coordinate bench of the ITAT.

What were the issues?

Whether a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be sustained when the underlying addition has been deleted by a higher appellate authority.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT & SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEEShri Dharan Gandhi Shri Surendra Mohan (Sr.DR)

For Appellant: Shri Dharan Gandhi
For Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan (Sr.DR)
Hearing: 23/04/2026Pronounced: 28/04/2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.9093/Mum/2025 (Assessment year: 2012-13)

Abdulhamid Abdulmajid vs DCIT -22(1), Mumbai Nathani Piramal Chamber, Mumbai-400012 31st Flat No.312, Floor Kalapataru Heights, Dr Al Nair Road, Agripada Mumbai- 400011 PAN:AABPN1625K APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Dharan Gandhi Revenue by : Shri Surendra Mohan (Sr.DR)

Date of hearing : 23/04/2026 Date of pronouncement : 28/04/2026 O R D E R Per: Anikesh Banerjee (JM): The instant appeal of the assessee filed against the order of the NFAC, Delhi [for brevity the “Ld. CIT(A)”], order passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act 1961 (for brevity ‘the Act’) for Assessment Year 2012-13, date of order 11.11.2025. The impugned order emanated from the order of the Ld. Assistant

2 ITA No.9093/Mum/2025 Abdulhamid Abdulmajid Nathani Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 22(1), Mumbai (for brevity the ‘Ld. AO’) order passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act date of order 27.03.2025.

2.

The Ld. AR submitted that, for the impugned assessment year, the assessment was completed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act vide order dated 28.12.2019, wherein an addition of Rs. 5,65,00,000/- was made. The assessee challenged the said order before the Ld. CIT(A) but did not succeed. Subsequently, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ITAT, Mumbai. The Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal, Mumbai, in ITA No. 2528/Mum/2024, vide order dated 24.11.2025, deleted the addition made by the Ld. AO, thereby allowing the assessee’s appeal on the quantum issue. Accordingly, it was contended that the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act amounting to Rs. 1,74,58,500/-, being consequential to the said addition, is liable to be deleted. 3. The Ld. DR did not raise any objection to the submissions made by the assessee. 4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The assessment in the present case was completed under section 143(3) of the Act, pursuant to which penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) were initiated and penalty amounting to Rs. 1,74,58,500/- was levied by the Ld. AO. It is observed that the quantum addition, on the basis of which the impugned penalty was levied, has been deleted by the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal, Mumbai. In view of the above, the very foundation for levy of penalty no longer survives.

3 ITA No.9093/Mum/2025 Abdulhamid Abdulmajid Nathani Accordingly, the penalty imposed by the Ld. AO amounting to Rs. 1,74,58,500/- is hereby deleted. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No.9093/Mum/2025 is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 28th day of April 2026. Sd/- Sd/- (OM PRAKASH KANT) (ANIKESH BANERJEE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai,िदनांक/Dated: 28/04/2026 SAUMYASr.PS Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. अपीलाथ�/The Appellant , 2. �ितवादी/ The Respondent. 3. आयकरआयु� CIT 4. िवभागीय�ितिनिध, आय.अपी.अिध., मुंबई/DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गाड�फाइल/Guard file. BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Asstt. Registrar), ITAT, MUMBAI

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →