ACIT CIRCLE-15(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S GALAXY SURFACTANTS LTD., MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2656/MUM/2019Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 December 2021AY 2009-103 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 quantum addition, which formed the basis for the penalty, was deleted by a previous Tribunal order, the penalty could not be sustained. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the deletion of penalty by the CIT(A). The penalty was levied under Section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.

What were the issues?

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

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI LALIET KUMAR & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN

For Respondent: Dr. C.P. Ramaswami
Hearing: 07/12/2021Pronounced: 08/12/2021

Appellant by : Sh. Hoshang B. Irani, Sr. DR Respondent by : Dr. C.P. Ramaswami Date of hearing : 07/12/2021 Date of pronouncement : 08/12/2021 ORDER PER LALIET KUMAR, J.M: The present appeal filed by the Revenue challenging the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-24, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as ‘the CIT(A)’] vide order dated 08.01.2019 on the grounds mentioned in the appeal. 1. “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A), erred in deleting the penalty of Rs.1,62,21,034/- levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act, without going into the merit of the penalty and ignoring that in the assessment order, it is clearly specified that, penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the 2 Mum 2019-M/s Galaxy Surfactants Ltd. Income Tax Act is separately initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and assessee had deliberately filed inaccurate particulars of income which would have escaped the tax, and therefore, explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) was applicable to the facts of the case.” 2. “The appellant prays that the order of the CIT(A), Mumbai on the above ground be set-aside and that of the assessing officer be restored.”

2.

The ld. Authorized Representative (AR) for the assessee had drawn our attention to the order passed by the Tribunal dated 11.02.2017 in ITA No. 1986/Mum/2015 whereby the Tribunal had deleted the quantum addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO). He had also drawn our attention to para- 2.4.1 of the CIT(A) whereby the above noted fact was recorded by the CIT(A) and after recording that the appeal of the assessee was allowed.

3.

Per contra, the ld. Departmental Representative (DR) for the Revenue relied upon the order passed by the AO.

4.

We have heard the rival contentions of the parties and perused the material available on record.

5.

Since the Tribunal vide order dated 19.12.2017 had deleted the quantum addition, therefore, nothing remains , as the very basis of imposition of penalty has been deleted. In views of above the penalty order cannot be sustained.

6.

In view of the above, we delete the penalty and dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. Order pronounced in the court on 08.12.2021. Sd/- Sd/- (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) (LALIET KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER मुंबई/Mumbai, Dt. 08/12/2021 SK, PS

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 →