ACIT CIRCLE- 16(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S EVEREST ENTERTAINMENT PVT LTD., MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 766/MUM/2020Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 August 2021AY 2012-123 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 the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which sets monetary limits for appeals, does not apply to penalty proceedings even if the quantum proceedings fall under an exception. Penalty and quantum assessment are distinct.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the deletion of penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) for bogus purchases. The penalty was levied on an estimated addition made by the Assessing Officer.

What were the issues?

Whether the Revenue's appeal against a penalty deletion is maintainable when the penalty amount falls below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, despite a potential exception for quantum proceedings.

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, ‘E‘ BENCH

Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH & SHRI M.BALAGANESH

For Appellant: Shri Satish Mody
For Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar, Shri Satish Mody
Hearing: 24/08/2021Pronounced: 24/08/2021

आदेश / O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH (A.M):

1.

This appeal in A.Y.2011-12 arises out of the order by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Mumbai in appeal No.CIT(A)-e-file-19/ACIT-16(1)/2018-19 dated 11/11/2019 (ld. CIT(A) in short) in the matter of imposition of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act).

2.

We have heard rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We find that the ld. AO had levied penalty on the estimated

M/s. Everest Entertainment Pvt. Ltd., addition made on account of bogus purchases. This penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act on an addition made on account of bogus purchases was deleted by the ld. CIT(A) on the primary ground that no penalty would survive on an estimated addition. Aggrieved, the revenue is in appeal before us.

3.

We find at the outset, the ld AR argued that penalty that is in dispute before us, falls below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT in its Circular No. 17/2019 dated 08/08/2019 for preferring appeal by the Revenue before this Tribunal. We find that the ld. DR vehemently argued that the said case falls within the exception provided in para 10(e) of the said Circular and accordingly he argued that the appeal is maintainable. We find that the exception provided in para 10(e) of the Circular 17/2019 dated 08/08/2019 is applicable only for the quantum proceedings and the same cannot be made applicable for penalty proceedings. It is well settled that penalty and quantum assessment proceedings are distinct and separate. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal of the Revenue by following the aforesaid Circular No.17/2019 dated 08/08/2019 and hold that the appeal of the Revenue is not maintainable.

4.

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.

Order pronounced in open Court on 24/08/2021.

Sd/- Sd/- (MAHAVIR SINGH) (M.BALAGANESH) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai; Dated 24/08/2021 KARUNA, sr.ps

M/s. Everest Entertainment Pvt. Ltd.,

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 →