W G STEEL INDUSTRIES ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 28(3)(5), NAVI MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1697/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 June 2025AY 2010-11Bench: SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND MISS PADMAVATHY. S( (Accountant Member)2 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 ITAT remanded the penalty appeals to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, to be decided afresh based on the outcome of the quantum proceedings, as the basis for penalty was still under review.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against orders upholding penalties under Section 271(1)(c) for A.Ys 2010-11 and 2011-12. The underlying quantum appeals for these assessment years were previously set aside by the ITAT for fresh adjudication by the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether penalty orders under Section 271(1)(c) can be sustained when the quantum assessments forming their basis have been set aside for fresh adjudication.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE & MISS PADMAVATHY. S

For Appellant: Shri Satish Jain
For Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary – Sr AR

Heard together (2 matters)

I.T.A. No.1697/Mum/2025
I.T.A. No.1699/Mum/2025

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

O R D E R PER: ANIKESH BANERJEE (JM):

Both the appeals of the assessee were filed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, *for brevity, ‘Ld.CIT(A)’+passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961,(in short, ‘the Act’) for A.Ys 2010- 11 & 2011-12, date of order 01/12/2023. The impugned orders emanated from the orders of the Ld.Income-tax Officer, Ward 28(3)(5), Mumbai[for brevity,

2 ITAs1697 & 1699/Mum/2025 W.G. Steel Industries ‘Ld.AO’+ passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, date of order 12/08/2016 for both the orders.

2.

Both appeals were filed with a delay of 375 days. The assessee has explained the cause of delay by submitting a duly sworn affidavit dated 28/04/2025. Since the Ld. DR has not raised any objection to the condonation of delay, we hereby condone the delay and admit the appeals for adjudication.

3.

We heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. Both appeals are directed against the orders passed by the Ld. CIT(A), wherein the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act was upheld — amounting to Rs. 2,44,480/- for A.Y. 2010-11 and Rs. 6,23,420/- for A.Y. 2011-12, being 100% of the tax allegedly sought to be evaded. During the course of the hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that for both assessment years, the quantum appeals had been duly contested before the ITAT, Mumbai Bench. The Coordinate Bench, vide orders dated 28/04/2025 in for A.Y. 2010-11 and for A.Y. 2011-12, set aside the quantum assessments to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee. In view of the above, and considering the submissions of the Ld. AR, we deem it appropriate to remand the present appeals, pertaining to penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, to be decided afresh in light of the outcome of the quantum proceedings. The Ld. DR has not raised any objection to the prayer of the Ld. AR. We make it clear that we are not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case so as not to prejudice the outcome of the proceedings.Needless to say, the assessee shall be 3 ITAs1697 & 1699/Mum/2025 W.G. Steel Industries afforded a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the remanded proceedings and, in turn, is expected to extend full cooperation for expeditious disposal of the appeal.

4.

In the result, the appeals of the assessee bearing ITAs No.1697 & 1699/Mum/2025are allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 12/06/2025.

Sd/- sd/- (MISS PADMAVATHY. S) ( ANIKESH BANERJEE) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai, Dt : 12th June, 2025 Pavanan प्रतितितिअग्रेतििCopy of the Order forwarded to : अिीिार्थी/The Appellant , 1. प्रतिवादी/ The Respondent. 2. आयकरआयुक्त CIT 3. तवभागीयप्रतितिति, आय.अिी.अति., मुबंई/DR, ITAT, 4. Mumbai गार्डफाइि/Guard file. 6. BY ORDER, //True Copy// Asstt.Registrar / Senior Private Secretary ITAT, Mumbai

4 ITAs1697 & 1699/Mum/2025 W.G. Steel Industries

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

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

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →