DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(2), MUMBAI vs. RAJU MOHAN GURNANI , NAVI MUMBAI
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI “D” BENCH : MUMBAI
Before: SHRI B.R. BASKARAN & SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEEAssessment Year : 2015-16
PER B.R. BASKARAN, A.M :
The Revenue has filed this appeal challenging the order dt.28-11-2024 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax
(Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [„Ld.CIT(A)‟]
and it relates to AY. 2015-16. The Revenue is aggrieved by the decision of the Ld.CIT(A) in deleting the penalty levied by the AOu/s.271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 („the Act‟)on the addition of undisclosed income of Rs. 3.52 crores.
The Ld.AR submitted that the AO has made addition of Rs. 3.52 crores as undisclosed income of the assessee and the said addition has since been deleted by the Tribunal, vide its order dt. 31-07-2023 passed
2
in ITA No.2091/Mum/2021 and others. The AO had levied penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act on the above said addition. The Ld.CIT(A) upon noticing that the Tribunal had already deleted the addition of Rs. 3.52
crores, deleted the penalty, since the penalty cannot stand by itself in the absence of addition relating thereto. The Revenue is aggrieved.
We heard the parties and perused the record.Since the addition on which the impugned penalty was levied has been deleted by the Tribunal in the quantum assessment proceedings referred supra, the Ld.CIT(A) was justified in deleting the penalty on the ground that the penalty levied on the said addition would not survive. Accordingly, we confirm the order passed by the Ld.CIT(A).
In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 25-03-2025 [ANIKESH BANERJEE]
[B.R. BASKARAN]
JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Mumbai,
Dated: 25-03-2025
TNMM
3
Copy to :
1)
The Appellant
2)
The Respondent
3)
The CIT concerned
4)
The D.R, ITAT, Mumbai
5)
Guard file
By Order
Dy./Asst.