ANVI ANKIT GANDHI (ANVI NIPUN KHANDWALA),MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 16(3)(4), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4186/MUM/2018Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 July 2021AY 2006-074 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 held that once the quantum addition is deleted, the penalty levied in relation to that addition cannot survive. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was against the confirmation of a penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The penalty was related to an addition made for mutual fund investments. The CIT(A) had previously deleted the quantum addition.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under section 271(1)(c) can be sustained when the underlying addition has been deleted. Whether the deletion of quantum addition by CIT(A) renders the penalty unsustainable.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 144,Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VP & SHRI M. BALAGANESH, AM

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Bohra, AR
Hearing: 29.06.2021Pronounced: 12.07.2021

O R D E R भहावीय ससिंह, उऩाध्मऺ के द्वाया / PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VP: This appeal of assessee is arising out of the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)]-30, Mumbai [in short CIT(A)], dated 20.04.2018. The assessment was framed by the Income Tax Office, Ward-16(3)(4), Mumbai (in short DCIT/ITO/ AO) for the A.Y. 2006-07 vide order dated 20.03.2014 under section 144 read with section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’). The penalty was levied by the ITO ward, 16(3)(4), Mumbai under section 271(1)(c) of the Act vide order dated 25.09.2014.

1.

“1. The Learned Counsel of Income Tax (Appeals) has grossly erred in law and in facts in confirming penalty of ₹1,30,000/- levied by Learned Assessing Officer (Ld A.O.) without appreciating the fact the outcome of quantum appeal for the relevant assessment year i.e. appeal filed against the order passed under section 144 read with section 147 is still pending before Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).

2.

The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has grossly erred in stating that no one appeared from appellant’s side to explain the case or filed any written submission without appreciating that all the notices were issue at old address of the appellant not to the communication address as mentioned in Form 35.”

3.

At the outset, the learned Counsel for the assessee stated that the penalty was levied by the Assessing Officer in regard to investment in purchase of mutual funds amounting to ₹ 6 lacs. The learned Counsel for the assessee stated that the CIT(A) in appeal No. CIT(A)-30/33(1)(1)/11479/14-15 vide order dated 23.05.2019 has deleted the quantum addition vide Para 5.4.3 as under:-

“5.4.3 The appellant during the course of appellate proceedings has submitted proof, by way of Balance  Investment in HDFC Mutual Fund of ₹50,000/- by the appellant.

 Investment in HDFC Mutual Fund of ₹2,00,000/- by Mr. Nipun J Khandwala having joint name with the appellant.

 Investment in SBI Mutual Fund of ₹2,00,000/- by Mrs. Pratima N. Khandwala having joint name with the appellant.

Thus, during AY 2006-07, Mutual Fund Investment to the tune of ₹4,50,000/- has been substantiated by the appellant. Despite providing several opportunities to the Assessing Officer, from 10.02.2016 to 14.05.2019, to submit the basis for the addition of ₹6,00,000/- towards mutual fund investments, no comments/ report of the Ld. Assessing Officer were received. Therefore, ground of appeal No.3 is allowed.”

4. On query from the Bench, the learned Sr. DR stated that the appeal against the order of the CIT(A) deleting the quantum addition has not filed due to low tax effect.

5. Even, the learned counsel for the assessee made a categorical statement that assessee has no information of any appeal preferred by the Department against the order of CIT(A) allowing the quantum appeal of the assessee.

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 →