DY CIT CIRCLE-12 (1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S ALUWIND ARCHITECTURAL PVT LTD., MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6053/MUM/2019Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 April 20213 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 for quantum proceedings was not applicable to penalty proceedings.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the deletion of penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) for bogus purchases. The penalty was levied on an estimated addition made by the Assessing Officer.

What were the issues?

Whether the Revenue's appeal against a penalty order is maintainable when the penalty amount is below the monetary limit specified in CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, and if the exception for quantum proceedings applies 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 Appellant: Shri Hiten Chande
For Respondent: Shri Brajendra Kumar, Shri Hiten Chande
Hearing: 19/04/2021Pronounced: 19/04/2021

आदेश / O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH (A.M): This appeal in for A.Y.2009-10 arises out of the order by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-20, Mumbai in appeal No.CIT(A)-20/IT-10027/2018-19 dated 25/06/2019 (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.

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 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.

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 →