DCIT-199(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. CITY BUILD ARCADE PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5492/MUM/2019Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 March 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 CBDT circular exception applies only to quantum assessment proceedings, not penalty proceedings. Penalty and assessment proceedings are distinct and separate.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) concerning a penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) for bogus purchases. The Revenue argued that a CBDT circular provided an exception, making the appeal not maintainable due to a low tax effect.

What were the issues?

Whether a CBDT circular providing an exception for low tax effect in quantum assessment proceedings can be applied 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, ‘C‘ BENCH

Before: SHRI M.BALAGANESH, AM & SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM

For Appellant: Ms. Shefali
For Respondent: Ms. Shreekala Pardeshi, Ms. Shefali
Hearing: 10/03/2021Pronounced: 10/03/2021

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

1.

This appeal in A.Y.2009-10 arises out of the order by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, Mumbai in appeal No.CIT(A)-16/DCIT-9(2)(2)/IT-10026/2018-19 dated 21/04/2018 in the matter of imposition of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

M/s. City Build Arcade Pvt. Ltd.,

2.

The ld. DR argued vehemently that the penalty levied by the ld. AO in respect of disallowance made on bogus purchases. Accordingly, in the opinion of the ld. DR, the same would fall within the exception provided in the CBDT Circular No.17/2019 dated 08/08/2019. We find that the exception provided in the said Circular dated 08/08/2019 issued by the CBDT would apply only in respect of quantum assessment proceeding and the same cannot be made applicable for penalty proceeding and it is well settled that penalty proceeding and assessment proceedings are distinct and separate. In view of this, we are inclined to treat this appeal as not maintainable in view of the CBDT Circular No.17/2019 dated 08/08/2019 treating it as an appeal involving tax effect less than the prescribed monetary limit.

3.

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed as not maintainable.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 10/03/2021.

Sd/- Sd/- (RAVISH SOOD) (M.BALAGANESH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai; Dated 10/03/2021 KARUNA, sr.ps

M/s. City Build Arcade 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 →