DY.C.I.T. 5(1) (1), MUMBAI vs. SHRI CHETAN RAMANIKLAL SHAH, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2466/MUM/2021Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 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 if the primary addition is deleted, there is no basis for levying a penalty for concealment. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the penalty was upheld.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer treated an unsecured loan as an unexplained cash credit and levied a penalty. The CIT(A) deleted this penalty, stating that the ITAT had already deleted the quantum addition on which the penalty was based.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be sustained when the underlying addition has been deleted by the ITAT.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH

Hearing: 25.05.2022Pronounced: 25.05.2022

Date of Hearing 25.05.2022 Date of Pronouncement 25.05.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (AM): The present appeal filed by the revenue is directed against the order passed by the ld. CIT(A)-53, Mumbai, which in turn arises from the penalty order passed by the A.O. u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for A.Y. 2007-08. The revenue has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds before us:

Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 of Rs.3,76,20,132/- without considering the fact that the ITAT’s order of deleting the 2 ACIT, Circle 5(1)(1) Vs. Shri Chetan Ramniklal Shah quantum addition has not been accepted by the Revenue and further appeal before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court has been filed by the Department. The appellant prays that the order of the ld. CIT(A) be set aside and the order of the A.O be restored.

2.

The fact in brief is that assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act was passed on 31.03.2015 treating unsecured loan of Rs.11,06,80,000/- as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Therefore, the A.O has levied penalty of Rs.3,76,20,132/- u/s 271(1)(c) dated 08.01.2018.

3.

Aggrieved, the assessee has filed the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition stating that ITAT, Mumbai has deleted the quantum addition of Rs.11,06,80,000/- vide order dated 09.03.2019.

4.

At the outset, the ld. Counsel has brought to our notice that quantum addition on the basis of which impugned penalty was levied had been deleted by the ITAT, Mumbai, vide order dated 19.03.2019, therefore, there is no merit in the appeal of the revenue.

On the other hand, the ld. D.R could not controvert this fact that impugned penalty has been deleted by the ITAT, Mumbai as referred by the ld. Counsel.

5.

Heard both the sides and perused the material on record. The ITAT, Mumbai, vide order No. 3751/Mum/2017 dated 19.03.2019 has deleted addition of Rs.11,06,80,000/- made by the A.O u/s 68 of the Act. We consider that where addition made in the assessment order on the basis of which penalty for concealment was levied are deleted, there remains no basis of which penalty for concealment was levied. Therefore, we don’t 3 ACIT, Circle 5(1)(1) Vs. Shri Chetan Ramniklal Shah find any infirmity in the decision of ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed.

6.

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed.

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 →