LANDMARK EDUCATION INDIA,MUMB AI vs. ITO (EXEMPTION)-1(4), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 563/MUM/2021Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 January 2022AY 2008-094 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in disposing of the appeal as withdrawn under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act when the assessee had not opted for it. The case was remitted back to the CIT(A) for de-novo disposal.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer levied a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The CIT(A) deleted the penalty by disposing of the appeal as withdrawn under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, despite the assessee not opting for it.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in disposing of the penalty appeal as withdrawn under the Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020, without the assessee's consent. The validity of the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was also implicitly in question.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 274,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA & SHRI KULDIP SINGH

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, A.R
For Respondent: Shri Shailja Rai, D.R
Hearing: 08.12.2021Pronounced: 14.01.2022

Per Kuldip Singh, Judicial Member: Assessee by filing present appeal sought to set aside the impugned order dated 07.03.2021 passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A)] deleting the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the grounds inter alia that: “1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre ('CIT(A)') erred in not cancelling penalty levied 2 M/s. Landmark Education India under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') on the appellant.

2.

The CIT(A) erred in disposing the appeal (being appeal against levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act) of the appellant as withdrawn due to Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020 ('DTVSVA, 2020') when in fact the appellant has not opted for resolution of the said appeal under DTVSVA, 2020.

1.

3. The learned CIT(A) erred in passing the Order by not taking cognizance of the written submissions e-filed as e-processing response to Notice under section 250 of the Act dated 24-12-2020 for Appeal No.: CIT(A) 1, Mumbai/1033/2016-17 bearing DIN: ITBA/NFAC/F/APL- 1/2020-21/1029239383(1) by the appellant vide Acknowledgement Number 21012113875175.

4. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amplify, modify and vary the above grounds of appeal.”

2. Briefly stated facts necessary for adjudication for the controversy are that; on the basis of assessment framed at the total income of Rs.2,30,72,774/- under section 143(3) of the Act, Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as the AO) initiated the penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income by way of issuance of show cause notice under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act.

Declining the contentions raised by the assessee, being the penalty not leviable under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the AO proceeded to levy the penalty to the tune of Rs.91,81,064/- @ 100% of the tax sought to be evaded.

3.

Assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A) by filing the appeal who has deleted the penalty levied by the AO under section 271(1)(c) of the Act by disposing of the appeal as withdrawn on the Vivad Se Vishwas Act, 2020” (DTVSVA, 2020).

4.

Feeling aggrieved assessee has come up before the Tribunal by way of filing the present appeal.

5.

We have heard the Ld. Authorised Representatives of the parties to the appeal, perused the order passed by the Ld. Lower Authorities in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case and case law relied upon.

6.

Undisputedly, the Ld. CIT(A) vide impugned order has not disposed of the appeal filed before him challenging the levy of penalty by the AO on merits rather dismissed the same as withdrawn under DTVSVA, 2020. It is also not in dispute that assessee has never opted for resolution of the said appeal under DTVSVA, 2020.

7.

In view of the aforesaid undisputed facts we have no option except to remit the case back to the Ld. CIT(A) to dispose of de-novo in accordance with law, because, assessee has never opted for resolution of the said appeal under DTVSVA, 2020. Needless to say that Ld. CIT(A) would provide opportunity of being heard to the assessee. statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 14.01.2022.

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 →