ITO 20 (1)(1), MUMBAI vs. AAMIR ABDUL HUSSAIN MASTA (EARLIER KNOWN AS ASIF A. MASTA ), MUMBAI

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.

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 cases fall within the exception provided in para 10(e) of the said Circular and accordingly he argued that the appeals are 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 appeals of the Revenue are not maintainable.

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed.

Sd/- Sd/- (C.N. PRASAD) (M.BALAGANESH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai; Dated 10/05/2021 KARUNA, sr.ps