ALCHEMIE DYE CHEM PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT-15((1)(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5429/MUM/2019Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 April 2021AY 2012-134 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 since the quantum appeal concerning the interest disallowance was set aside and remanded to the Assessing Officer, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was premature. Therefore, the penalty was cancelled.

What were the facts?

The assessee's return of income was assessed at a higher amount than declared, leading to a disallowance of interest under Section 36(1)(iii). A penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was levied on this disallowance.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is sustainable when the underlying assessment order has been remanded for fresh consideration.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 36(1)(iii)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH

For Appellant: Shri Bhavin Dedhia
For Respondent: Shri Brajendra Kumar
Hearing: 19/04/2021Pronounced: 20/04/2021

आदेश / O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH (A.M):

1.

This appeal in A.Y.2012-13 arises out of the order by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-24, Mumbai in appeal No.CIT(A)-4/DCIT-15(1)(1)/IT-101/2018-19 dated 22/05/2019 (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).

M/s. Alchemie Dye Chem Pvt. Ltd.,

2.

The only issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the ld. CIT(A) was justified in confirming the levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the instant case.

3.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. We find that assessee is primarily engaged in the business of finance and investment activity. The return of income for the A.Y.2012-13 was filed by the assessee declaring total income of Rs.58,88,990/- and assessment was completed u/s.143(3) of the Act on 21/03/2015 determining total income at Rs.66,74,200/-. We find that the ld. AO had made disallowance of interest u/s.36(1)(iii) of the Act in the sum of Rs.7,85,206/-. We find that the ld. AO had levied penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of this disallowance of interest.

3.1. Both the parties before us fairly agreed that this Tribunal in the quantum appellate proceedings had set aside the matter to the file of the ld. AO with certain directions in dated 03/04/2019. The operative portion of the said tribunal decision is reproduced hereunder:-

“12. Therefore, considering the above propositions as laid down as well as considering the submissions of the assessee that AO had failed to appreciate that assessee had sufficient interest free own funds of Rs. 2.28 crores which have been advanced to M/s Aarti Drugs. Thus, interest only to the extent as attributable to balance amount be subject to disallowance u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act. We set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of AO with a direction to pass afresh order as per the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Reliance Utilities 18 DTR 1 (Mumbai) (2009). It is needless to mention that before passing afresh order of assessment, the AO shall provide sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

M/s. Alchemie Dye Chem Pvt. Ltd.,

13.

Before parting, we may make it clear that our decision to restore the matter back to the file of AO shall in no way be construed as having any reflection or expression on the merits of the dispute, which shall be adjudicated by the AO independently in accordance with law. With these directions, this ground of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.”

3.2. Since the quantum appeal has been remanded to the file of the ld. AO, the penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act would be premature and have no legs to stand at this moment. Accordingly, we have no hesitation in cancelling the levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Hence, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed.

4.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced on 20/04/2021 by way of proper mentioning in the notice board.

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 →