ACIT, CRICLE-1 KALYAN, WAYALE NAGAR vs. RADHESHYAM SAVARMAL AGRAWAL, SHAHAPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1970/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 May 2026AY 2015-164 pages

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

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that once the quantum additions are deleted, no penalty can survive. The Department's appeal against the deletion of the penalty was dismissed as the basis for the penalty no longer existed.

What were the facts?

The Department appealed the deletion of a penalty by the CIT(A). The penalty was levied under Section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The quantum additions, which formed the basis for the penalty, had previously been 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 quantum additions have been deleted. The impact of a pending appeal by the Department on the sustainability of the penalty.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI

Before: HON’BLE SANDEEP GOSAIN & HON’BLE BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH

For Respondent: Shri Annavaram Kosuri, SR AR

आदेश / ORDER

PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM:

This appeal is filed by the Department against the order of Ld. CIT(A) NFAC Delhi vide DIN: ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025- 26/1083539539(1) dated 10-Dec-2025 for the Assessment Year 2015-16. The Department has raised the following grounds of appeal:

ITA 1970/MUM/2026 RADHESHYAM SAVARMAL AGRAWAL

1.

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty of Rs. 3,13,38,430/- levied by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, without properly appreciating the facts brought on record during the assessment proceedings.

2.

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it is submitted that Department has not accepted the order of ITAT dated 21.01.2021 deleting the quantum addition and appeal has been filed before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court on 28.12.2021 vide Reg. No. ITXA/3/2023.

2.

At the very outset, we noticed that the AO had levied penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. However, the Coordinate Bench of the ITAT, in ITA No. 5497/Mum/2018 dated 21.01.2021, had deleted the quantum additions. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A), after considering the facts of the case, allowed the appeal filed by the assessee and deleted the penalty.

3.

After considering the facts, we also find that once the quantum additions have already been deleted, no penalty survives thereafter. Thus, the Ld. CIT(A) has taken a conscious decision which needs no interference.

4.

Even otherwise, no new facts or circumstances have been placed on record by the Ld. DR except that the Department has filed an appeal against the order of the Coordinate Bench of the ITAT deleting the quantum additions. Thus, in our view, this cannot be a ground for sustaining the penalty, as in case the appeal filed by the Department is allowed by the Hon’ble High Court, then in that eventuality the

ITA 1970/MUM/2026 RADHESHYAM SAVARMAL AGRAWAL

Department will be at liberty to initiate penalty proceedings. Therefore, the grounds raised by the Department stand dismissed.

5.

In the result, appeal filed by the Department stands dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 20.05.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH SANDEEP GOSAIN ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai Dated: 20.05.2026 RY – Sr. PS.

Copy to: ACIT, CRICLE-1 KALYAN, 1ST FLOOR, MOHAN PLAZA BUILDING, WAYALE NAGAR, KHADAKPADA, 1 KALYAN 421301, KALYAN-DOMBIVALI-421031, MAHARASHTRA RADHESHYAM SAVARMAL AGRAWAL, SHIVSHAKTI RICE MILL COMPOUND, 2 PANDIT NAKA, KALYAN-421601, MAHARASHTRA 3 THE PCIT / CIT, 4 THE D.R., ITAT, MUMBAI BENCH 5 GUARD FILE

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 →