DY CIT, CC-8(4), MUMBAI vs. SHRI MOHAN THAKUR, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 87/MUM/2021Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 December 2021AY 2008-092 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 related quantum additions were deleted by a co-ordinate bench, the penalty cannot stand. The deletion of the quantum addition removed the very foundation for the penalty.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer appealed the deletion of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) by the CIT(A). The penalty was levied on quantum additions made based on information from the Australian Tax Authority regarding hawala funding.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can survive when the underlying quantum addition has been deleted. The validity of penalty when the basis for the addition is no longer valid.

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 “B” BENCH, MUMBAI

1.

By way of this appeal, the Assessing Officer has challenged the correctness of the order dated 24.01.2020, passed by the CIT(A)-50, Mumbai, in the matter of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2008-09 on the following grounds: 1. "Whether on the fact and circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty holding that since the quantum addition has been deleted by the ITAT and the penalty cannot stand on its own without appreciating the fact that the Hon'ble ITAT has deleted the quantum addition without discussing the case on merits." – Rs.1,83,26,600/- 2. "Whether on the fact and circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty. Without appreciating the fact that the quantum addition was made on basis of information received from Australian Tax Authority regarding hawala funding to the extent of Rs.3,02,17,593/- by the assessee to his son, Shri Shagun Thakur."

Assessment Year: 2008-09 Page 2 of 3 3. "Whether on the fact and circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty without appreciating the fact that the Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the quantum addition was made on basis of information received from Australian Tax Authority regarding hawala funding to the extent of Rs.3,02,17,593/- by the assessee to his son, Shri Shagun Thakur."

4. The appellant prays that me order of the CIT(A)-on the above grounds be set aside and that of the , -Assessing Officer be restored.

2.

When this appeal was called for hearing, the learned counsel for the assessee invited our attention to the fact that the related quantum additions, in respect of which the impugned penalty is imposed, stand deleted by a decision of the co-ordinate bench. It is submitted that in this view of the matter, the conclusion arrived at by the learned CIT(A) cannot be faulted.

3.

The learned Departmental Representative does not dispute the submissions made by the assessee, but relies upon the stand of the Assessing Officer nevertheless.

4.

In view of the above factual position and in view of the fact that the related quantum addition do not survive any longer, the conclusion arrived at by the learned Commissioner cannot indeed be faulted. The very foundation of the impugned penalty ceases to hold good in law. We, therefore, confirm the conclusion arrived at by the learned CIT(A) and decline to interfere in the matter.

5.

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Pronounced in the open court today on the 07th day of December, 2021.

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 →