ESSEL MINING & INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DY.COMM OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(40, MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that since the additions on which the penalty was levied have been deleted by a previous order of the Tribunal, the penalty proceedings do not survive.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeals were against the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The penalty was based on additions made in assessment orders for suppressed production.
What were the issues?
The primary issue was whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be sustained when the underlying additions have been deleted.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI
ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM: These two appeals by the assessee are directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -47, Mumbai [ in short ‘the CIT(A)’] dated 16/06/2022 common for the Assessment Year 2009-10 and 2010-11, confirming levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( in short ‘the Act’).
Shri Yogesh Thar appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted that the addition on account of suppressed production was made in assessment order passed u/s 153C of the Act for the respective Assessment Years. In respect of said addition penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act were also initiated. The Assessing Officer vide separate orders of even date i.e. 28/03/2019 levied penalty of Rs.6,81,18,520/- for the Assessment Year 2009-10 and penalty of Rs.7,66,13,980/- in the Assessment Year 2010-11. The ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee pointed that the additions made in assessment proceedings were deleted by the Tribunal in for Assessment Year 2010-11 and ITA No.1023/Mum/2018 for Assessment Year 2009-10 vide common order dated 15/11/2022.
Shri Ashish Heliwal representing the Department fairly admitted that the additions made in the assessment order on which penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was levied has been deleted by the Tribunal.
Both sides heard. Both sides are unanimous in stating that the addition on which penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act was levied has been deleted by the Tribunal vide order dated 15/11/2022(supra) . Once substratum for levy of penalty has eroded, the penalty proceedings does not survive. In the light of undisputed facts, the impugned order confirming penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for Assessment Year 2009-10 and 2010-11 is quashed and the appeals of the assessee are allowed.
In the result, appeals by the assessee for Assessment Year 2009-10 and 2010- 11, respectively are allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on Monday the 28th day of November, 2022.
More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
- Shalin Jayantbhai Desai, Vadodara vs ACIT, Circle-4(2), Vadodara Present…ITA 2569/AHD/2026[2010-11]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2010-11
- Neo Structo Construction P. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs The Pr. CIT- 3, AhmedabadITA 1216/AHD/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2370/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2369/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of Hte Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- Vandemataram Projects Private Limited vs. Raipur Development AuthorityChhattisgarh · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Surya Prakash Aroma vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 OthersAllahabad · 27 Oct 2026