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

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6054/MUM/2019Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 April 2021AY 2009-103 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 penalty proceedings are distinct from quantum assessment proceedings. The appeal was dismissed as not maintainable based on CBDT Circular No. 17/2019, which does not allow appeals in penalty matters below a certain monetary limit.

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 deletion is maintainable when the penalty amount falls below the monetary limit prescribed by 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’ MUMBAI

For Appellant: Shri Nishit Gandhi
For Respondent: Shri Brajendra Kumar, Shri Nishit Gandhi
Hearing: 19/04/2021Pronounced: 19/04/2021

(Assessment Year :2009-10) Dy. CIT Circle-12(1)(1) Vs. M/s. Amba Enterprises Pvt Mumbai Ltd., R.No.128C, 1st Floor 430, 4th Floor, Blue Rose Aayakar Bhavan Industry, Churchgate, Metro Bazar, Mumbai Western Express Highway Borivali East Mumbai- 400066 PAN/GIR No.AAFCA6033R (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Revenue by Shri Brajendra Kumar Assessee by Shri Nishit Gandhi Date of Hearing 19/04/2021 Date of Pronouncement 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-10015/2018-19 dated 24/06/2019 (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

M/s. Amba Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., 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.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 19/04/2021

Sd/- Sd/- (PAVAN KUMAR GADALE) (M.BALAGANESH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai; Dated 19/04/2021 KARUNA, sr.ps

M/s. Amba Enterprises 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 →