RAJU TIRATHDAS RAMCHANDANI,MUM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-22(3)(1), MUM

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2252/MUM/2022Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 October 2022AY 2005-064 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 Tribunal held that once the quantum addition, which formed the basis for the penalty, was set aside, the penalty becomes infructuous. Additionally, the notice for penalty initiation was found to be defective as it did not strike out irrelevant portions.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer (AO) added Rs. 14,00,000/- as unexplained investment and initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c). The penalty was confirmed by the CIT(A) despite the assessee not appearing. However, the ITAT had previously set aside the quantum addition and remanded it to the AO.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is sustainable when the underlying addition has been set aside, and whether the penalty notice was valid.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 144,Section 147,Section 274

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH

Hearing: 31.10.2022Pronounced: 31.10.2022

PER AMARJIT SINGH, AM: The solitary ground of appeal of the assessee is directed against the NFAC in confirming the levy of penalty of Rs.4,49,922/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.

2.

Fact in brief is that assessment u/s 144 r.w.s 147 of the Act was finalized on 04.03.2013. During the course assessment A.O noticed that assessee has made total investment of Rs.14,00,000/- during the year in all Templaton India Treasury Management Account Regular Plan – Weekly dividend plan scheme. The A.O stated that during the course of Raju Tirathdas Ramchandani Vs. Income Tax Officer -22(3)(1)

assessment no explanation about the nature and the source of the investment made was provided by the assessee, therefore, the A.O treated the amount of Rs.14,00,000/- as unexplained investment and added back to the total income of the assessee. The A.O has also initiated penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Thereafter, vide penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 11.03.2016 the A.O stated that neither assessee attended during the course of penalty proceedings nor filed any explanation for the aforesaid unexplained investment, therefore, penalty to the amount of Rs. 4,49,922/- was levied.

3.

Assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Even before the ld. CIT(A) assessee had not made any compliance, therefore, ld.CIT(A) has confirmed the penalty levied by the A.O. However, the ITAT, Mumbai, vide order dated 29.06.2016 in respect of the quantum addition of Rs.14,00,000/- set aside the order of ld. CIT(A) and remanded the matter back to the file of the A.O. The assessing officer while giving effect to the order of the ITAT vide order dated 14.08.2017 passed the order u/s 143(3) r.w.s 254 of the Act without making any addition to the returned income.

4.

During the course of appellate proceedings before us at the outset the ld. Counsel contended that the order against which penalty levied had already been set aside by the ITAT and no further addition was made by the A.O. Therefore, the impugned penalty is required to be deleted. The ld. Counsel also contended that notice issued u/s 274 dated 04.03.2013 in the case of the assessee for levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is also defective because the A.O has not striked out the irrelevant portion.

Raju Tirathdas Ramchandani Vs. Income Tax Officer -22(3)(1)

On the other hand, the ld. D.R. relied on the order of lower authorities.

5.

Heard both the sides and perused the material on record. Without reiterating the facts as elaborated above the quantum addition on the basis of which penalty was set aside to the file of the A.O vide ITAT order dated 29.06.2016. Thereafter the A.O vide order dated 11.08.2017 u/s 143(3) r.w.s 254 of the Act has accepted the returned income without making any addition. In view of the above facts we consider that once the quantum addition on the basis of which penalty levied is deleted then the penalty become infructuous. We have also perused the notice u/s 274 dated 04.03.2013 issued by the A.O and noticed that A.O has not striked out the irrelevant portion and did not specify the limb under which the penalty is initiated, therefore, following the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh Vs. DCIT (2021) 434 ITR 1 (Bom) (HC), we consider that the impugned penalty is not sustainable. Therefore, the grounds of appeal of the assessee are allowed.

6.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 31.10.2022 (Vikas Awasthy) (Amarjit Singh) Judicial Member Accountant Member Place: Mumbai Date 31.10.2022 Rohit: PS Raju Tirathdas Ramchandani Vs. Income Tax Officer -22(3)(1)

आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथी / The Appellant 2. प्रत्यथी / The Respondent. 3. आयकर आयुक्त(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 4. आयकर आयुक्त / CIT 5. विभागीय प्रविवनवध, आयकर अपीलीय अवधकरण DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file.

सत्यावपि प्रवि //// आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,

उि/सहायक िंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.

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 →