ACIT 26 (1), MUMBAI vs. COTTON NATION, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6368/MUM/2019Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 July 2021AY 2014-153 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 Revenue's appeal was not maintainable as it fell below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The exception for quantum proceedings was not applicable to penalty proceedings.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the deletion of penalty levied on estimated bogus purchases. The penalty was initially levied by the AO and subsequently deleted by the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the Revenue's appeal against a penalty deletion is maintainable when the penalty amount is below the prescribed monetary limit, considering the applicability of CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 to penalty 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, MUMBAI BENCH “C” MUMBAI

Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH & SHRI M. BALAGANESH

For Respondent: Ms. Shreekala Pardeshi, DR
Hearing: 24/06/2021Pronounced: 01/07/2021

ORDER PER M. BALAGANESH, A.M. The appeal of the assessee arises out of the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-38, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as ‘Ld. CIT(A)’] dated 28.01.2019 for assessment year 2014-15against the order of assessment framed by the Ld. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-26(1), Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as ‘AO’) on 19.12.2016 for assessment year 2014-15 u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’).

M/s Cottoan Nation 2 ITA No. 6368/M/2019

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 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 these appeals 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. Order pronounced in the open Court on 01/07/2021 Sd/- Sd/- (MAHAVIR SINGH) (M. BALAGANESH) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 01/07/2021 Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S. Copy of the Order forwarded to :

M/s Cottoan Nation 3 ITA No. 6368/M/2019

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 →