DCIT CC-8(2),MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. VEENA RAJENDRA CHATURVEDI, MUMBAI

ITA 2295/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 May 2026AY 2013-145 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer made additions to the assessee's income based on alleged bogus long-term capital gains and commission expenditure. Subsequently, a penalty was levied under Section 271(1)(c). The CIT(A) deleted the penalty, holding that the additions forming the basis of the penalty were already deleted by the ITAT in the quantum appeal.

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that penalty proceedings are dependent on the outcome of quantum proceedings. Since the additions that formed the basis of the penalty were deleted by a co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal, the penalty could not survive independently. The pendency of a further appeal before the High Court did not alter this position as the Tribunal's order deleting the additions was still in effect.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can survive when the quantum additions forming its basis have been deleted by the Tribunal. Whether the pendency of a further appeal by the Revenue against the quantum order affects the validity of the penalty deletion.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 68,Section 69C,Section 275(1A)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “F” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY & SHRI JAGADISH

For Appellant: Shri Suchek Anchaliya, CA
For Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain (SR. DR)
Hearing: 13.05.2026Pronounced: 14.05.2026

Per: SHRI JAGADISH, A.M.:

1.

This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-48, Mumbai dated 30.12.2025 for A.Y. 2013-14 deleting the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Veena Rajendra Chaturvedi

2.

The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:-

“1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was erred in deleting the penalty of Rs.2,82,72,028/- levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, without appreciating the facts brought on record by the AO?

2.

Whether on

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 271(1)(c)

All 24,918 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →