DCIT -CIRCLE-12(10(1), MUMBAI Q, MUMBAI vs. ANUPAM STATIONERY SUPERSTORE PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6345/MUM/2019Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 June 2021AY 2011-123 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 appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable as the penalty amount fell below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The exception mentioned by the DR was applicable only to quantum proceedings, not penalty proceedings.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the deletion of penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) on an estimated addition for bogus purchases. The penalty was deleted by the CIT(A) on the grounds that no penalty could be levied on an estimated addition.

What were the issues?

Maintainability of Revenue's appeal due to monetary limit and applicability of CBDT circular exceptions 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, ‘A‘ BENCH

For Respondent: Shri Brajendra Kumar
Hearing: 21/06/2021Pronounced: 22/06/2021

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)-20, Mumbai in appeal No.CIT(A)-20/IT-10020/2018-19 dated 20/06/2019 (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.

None appeared on behalf of assessee. We have heard ld. DR 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

M/s. Anupam Stationery Superstore Pvt. Ltd., 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 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 cases fall 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 on 22/06/2021 by way of proper mentioning in the notice board.

Sd/- Sd/- (MAHAVIR SINGH) (M.BALAGANESH) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai; Dated 22/06/2021 KARUNA, sr.ps

M/s. Anupam Stationery Superstore 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 →