M/S AANGAN PROPERTIES PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO 12(1)91), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 906/MUM/2020Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 October 2021AY 2011-122 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that a co-ordinate bench had previously deleted the quantum addition that formed the basis for the penalty. Consequently, the penalty levied became infructuous.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal concerns a penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer had levied a penalty of ₹12,34,733/-, which was sustained by the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

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

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 “A” MUMBAI

Before: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN & SHRI RAVISH SOOD

For Appellant: Mr. Hitesh Trivedi, AR
For Respondent: Mr. Brajendra Kumar, DR
Hearing: 25/08/2021Pronounced: 14/10/2021

ORDER PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, A.M. The present appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-20, Mumbai [in short ‘CIT(A)’] for the assessment year 2011-12 dated 24.10.2019 and arises out of levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act).

2.

At the outset, it is brought to our notice that the present appeal relates to penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act in which the Assessing Officer levied the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act to the extent of ₹12,34,733/- and the same was sustained by CIT(A)-20, Mumbai. It is brought to our notice that ITAT in its order

M/s Aangan Properties Private Limited 2 in ITA No. 3613/M/2017 dated 07.12.2018 deleted the quantum addition made by the Assessing Officer. The relevant order is placed at page No. 53 of the Paper Book. After considering the order of the Co-ordinate Bench in quantum in which the addition was deleted and decided the issue in favour of the assessee. On the same addition, the Assessing Officer levied the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.

3.

Since the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer becomes infructuous, subsequent to deletion of the quantum of addition. Therefore, we are inclined to delete the addition made by the Assessing Officer by allowing the grounds raised by the assessee.

4.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.

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 →