DCIT CENT. CIR 1(2), MUMBAI vs. MILAN KAVIN PARIKH, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1240/MUM/2022Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 August 2022AY 2007-083 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that since the additions on which the penalty was levied were already deleted by the Tribunal, the penalty cannot survive. The impugned order of the CIT(A) was upheld.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the deletion of penalty by the CIT(A) for AY 2007-08. The penalty was levied under Section 271(1)(c) based on additions made by the Assessing Officer.

What were the issues?

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?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

  • 132 Taxmann.com 123
    132 Taxmann.com 123
    7 citing

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

Hearing: 10/08/2022Pronounced: 10/08/2022

This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-47 , Mumbai [in short 'the CIT(A)’] dated 15/11/2021 for the assessment year 2007-08.

2.

This appeal by the Revenue is time barred by 108 days. The impugned order was passed during the period of COVID-19 Pandemic . The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India taking cognizance of the hardship caused to the litigants by pandemic extended the period of limitation under general laws and special laws vide order dated 23/09/2021 reported as “ Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, 132 taxmann.com 123. The present appeal has been filed within the extended period of limitation, hence, no delay.

3.

Shri Vijay Mehta appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted at the outset that the CIT(A) has deleted penalty as the Tribunal in &1960/Mum/2020 vide order dated 07/04/2021 deleted the addition on which penalty was levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short ‘ the Act’]. 4. Shri Salil Mishra representing the Department supported the assessment order. 5. Both sides heard. The Revenue is in appeal against deleting of penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Undisputedly, the Tribunal has deleted the additions on which penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act has been levied. Once the substratum for levy of penalty has eroded the penalty does not survive. We find no infirmity in the impugned order, hence, the same is upheld and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on Wednesday the 10th day of August, 2022.

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 →