ACIT 3(2) (1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. SJR COMMODITIES & CONSULTING PVT.LTD, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2175/MUM/2021Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2022AY 2011-127 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 upheld the CIT(A)'s order deleting the penalty. The penalty related to the disallowance of deduction under Section 10AA was deleted as the ITAT had ruled in favor of the assessee, even though the Revenue had appealed to the High Court. The penalty related to the option premium loss was also not sustained at this stage as the matter was remanded to the AO.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer levied a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for concealment of income. The CIT(A) deleted this penalty, which was then appealed by the Assessing Officer. The penalty was based on two additions: disallowance of deduction under Section 10AA and loss on option premium allocated to an SEZ unit.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be levied when the additions forming the basis of penalty have been deleted or remanded by higher authorities, and whether pendency of a High Court appeal by the Revenue negates the deletion of penalty.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 10AA

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “G” BENCH, MUMBAI

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Shah, AR
For Respondent: Shri Harmesh Lal, DR
Hearing: 17.05.2022Pronounced: 23.05.2022
1.

This appeal is filed by the learned Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax, 3(2)(1), Mumbai (the learned Assessing Officer) against the order passed by National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC) [the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)] for A.Y. 2011-12 vide din no. 17th ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2021-22/1035677097(1) dated September, 2021, wherein the penalty levied of ₹2,86,97,054/- levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act passed by the learned Assessing Officer on 30th March, 2019 was deleted.

“(i) Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the penalty of Rs. 2,86,97,054/- levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 without appreciating that the fact that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of its income for the instant Assessment Year thereby concealing its true income.

(ii) Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the penalty of Rs. 2,86,97,054/- levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the I. T. Act, 1961 on the basis of the ITAT order dated 14.06.2019 without appreciating that on the issue of restriction of deduction claimed by assessee u/s. 10AA, the decision of ITAT has been challenged by the department in High Court.

(iii) Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the penalty of Rs. 2,86,97,054/- levied us.271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 on the basis of the ITAT order dated 14.06.2019 without appreciating that the ITAT had restored the issue relating to the issue of allocation of loss option premium of Rs.85,98,116/- to SEZ unit to the Assessing Officer for denovo adjudication and had not deleted the addition of Rs.85,98,116/- made by the Assessing Officer.

(v) The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or add a new ground which may be necessary.”

3.

Brief acts of the case shows that assessee is a company filed its return of income for impugned Assessment Year 2011-12 on 29.09.2011 declaring total income of ₹ nil claiming deduction under Section 10AA of the Act. The assessment order under Section 143(3) was passed on 27th March, 2014 at an assessed income of ₹8,78,96,816/- , where disallowance of deduction under Section 10A of the Act was made. There was also addition on account of loss on option premium buying and selling of USD allocated to Cochin Unit of ₹85,98,116/-. The assessee preferred the appeal before the learned CIT (A), who confirmed the disallowance under Section 10A of the Act of ₹5,92,02,308/- instead of claim of ₹13,69,95,563/-. He also confirmed the addition of ₹85,98,116/- on option premium loss allocated to SEZ unit. Based on this, the penalty proceedings originally initiated was put into action. The assessee submitted a letter dated 11th March, 2019 stating that disallowance under Section 10A of the Act was made on adhoc basis and there is no concealment of income. Meanwhile, the order of learned CIT (A) in quantum proceedings was challenged before the co- ordinate Bench in ITA no. 4548/Mum/2017. This appeal

“6.6 As evident from the above, it is pertinent to note that the penalty under consideration for concealment of income under section 271(1)(c) was levied on account of two additions. One, addition on account of estimated turnover of SEZ unit which was reduced from Rs. 13,69,95,563 to Rs. 5,92,02,308/- and second on the issue relating to allocation of loss of option premium of Rs. 85,98,116/- to SEZ unit. No penalty was levied on account of apportion of expenses amounting to Rs 17,70,848/- by the AO as the same was deleted by the CIT(A)-18, Mumbai.

6.7. As the matter under consideration of Appeal by the Appellant was on account of penalty levied for the additions made relating to additions of Rs. 85,98,116/- which has been restored to the AO for denovo examination and the addition of estimated turnover of SEZ unit to 3% from 6.52%, which has been set aside by the Hon'ble ITAT.

6.8 In view of the decision of Hon'ble ITAT(Supra), the Penalty levied to the extent of addition made on account of addition of Rs. 85,98,116/- and addition of

4.

Thus, penalty was deleted by the learned CIT (A).

5.

The learned Assessing Officer is aggrieved with that of the order is in appeal.

6.

Supporting the order of the learned Assessing Officer, the Departmental Representative submitted that the decision of the ITAT has been challenged by the Revenue before the Hon'ble High court with respect to the deduction under Section 10AA of the Act. Further, with respect to the second disallowance on allocation of loss premium, it was submitted that ITAT has set aside the order to the file of the learned Assessing Officer for deciding afresh and therefore, the penalty could not have been deleted on the above sum.

7.

The learned Authorized Representative submitted that the deduction under Section 10A of the Act of ₹7,77,93,255/- has been deleted by the co-ordinate Bench and therefore, merely preferring an appeal before the Hon'ble High Court by the Revenue cannot be used as excuse for levy of the penalty. With respect to the second addition, it has been remanded back to the learned Assessing Officer and therefore, the penalty may be reinitiated by the learned Assessing Officer, if the addition is sustained. Therefore, there is no error in order of learned CIT (A) in deleting the penalty.

9.

In the result, the order of the learned Assessing Officer is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 23.05.2022.

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 →