MR SHEKHAR DADARKAR PROP. M/S S.D. CONSTRUCTION,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-31(3), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3343/MUM/2024Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 January 2025AY 2012-13Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON'BLE (Vice President), SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON'BLE (Accountant Member)1 pages

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

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the original assessment order was replaced by a set-aside order, rendering the penalty order based on the original assessment infructuous. Consequently, the appeal against the penalty was also infructuous.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed a return of income, and subsequent assessment led to additions. The assessee appealed to the CIT(A), who confirmed some additions. A second appeal to the Tribunal resulted in setting aside certain issues to the AO. The AO reframed the assessment, and the CIT(A) again confirmed additions related to TDS non-deduction and deemed rent.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) is sustainable when the original assessment order was set aside and replaced by a subsequent order, making the penalty infructuous.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 143(3),Section 194A,Section 24(4)(b),Section 23,Section 54,Section 254

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “G” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON’BLE & SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON’BLE

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Thakudesai, C.A
Hearing: 30/01/2025Pronounced: 30/01/2025

आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत /Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 1.

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 →