ACIT -12 (3) (2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. LIFE CYCLE INFOTECH PVT LTD, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6336/MUM/2019Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 July 2021AY 2009-105 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 appeal of the Revenue was not maintainable as the tax effect involved was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The Tribunal confirmed the deletion of the penalty by the CIT(A).

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the deletion of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) by the CIT(A). The penalty was levied for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income related to claims of bogus purchases on which depreciation was claimed.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal filed by the Revenue is maintainable considering the low tax effect as per CBDT circulars. Whether the deletion of penalty by the CIT(A) was justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 143(3)

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 Rajeev Harit, CIT DR
Hearing: 21.06.2021Pronounced: 12.07.2021

O R D E R भहावीय ससिंह, उऩाध्मऺ के द्वाया / PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VP: This appeal of Revenue is arising out of the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)]-20, Mumbai [in short CIT(A)], dated 13.06.2019. The assessment was framed by the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Ward-12(3)(2), Mumbai (in short DCIT/ITO/ AO) for the A.Y. 2009-10 vide order dated 20.03.2015 under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’). The penalty was levied by the DCIT 12(3)(2) under section 271(1)(c) of the Act vide order dated 31.03.2018. M/s Life Cycle Infotech Pvt. Ltd.; AY 09-10 2. The only issue in this appeal of Revenue is against the order of CIT(A) deleting the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income in respect to the claims of assessee on bogus purchases on which depreciation as claimed. For this, Revenue has raised various grounds.

3.

At the outset, the learned counsel for the assessee stated that the penalty under dispute is amounting to ₹ 96,950/- which is below the prescribed limit of low tax effect as prescribed under CBDT Circular No.17 of 2019 dated 08.08.2019. The learned Counsel for the assessee drew our attention to the Tribunals order in the case of ITO vs. M/s Air Vision Technologies Private Limited in dated 19.02.2021, wherein Tribunal has adjudicated Para 11 as under: - “11. Before adverting any further it would be relevant to cull out the exception carved out in clause 10(e) of the CBDT Circular No. 3/2018 (as amended on 20.08.2018), which reads as under: 10. Adverse judgments relating to the following issues should be contested on merits notwithstanding that the tax effect entailed is less than the monetary limits specified in para 3 above or there is no tax effect: -

1.

(a) to (d)..................................................................... ................................................. M/s Life Cycle Infotech Pvt. Ltd.; AY 09-10 (e) Where addition is based on information received from external sources in the nature of law enforcement agencies such as CBI / ED / DRI / SFIO / Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI)".

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 →