ACIT CIRCLE-3, KALYAN vs. SHANKESHWAR REAL ESTATE COMPANY, KALYAN
In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the CBDT circular's exception applied only to quantum assessment proceedings, not penalty proceedings. Penalty and assessment proceedings are distinct and separate.
What were the facts?
The Revenue appealed against a penalty order under Section 271(1)(c) concerning disallowance of bogus purchases. The Revenue argued that a CBDT circular provided an exception, making the appeal not maintainable.
What were the issues?
Whether a CBDT circular providing an exception for low tax effect in quantum assessment also applies to penalty proceedings. The distinction between assessment and penalty proceedings.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘E‘ BENCH
Before: SHRI C.N.PRASAD, AM & SHRI M.BALAGANESH, AM
आदेश / O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH (A.M):
This appeal in A.Y.2011-12 arises out of the order by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Thane in appeal No.10061/2017-18 dated 02/08/2019 (ld. CIT(A) in short) in the matter of imposition of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
M/s. Shankeshwar Real Estate Company
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.
In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed as not maintainable.
Order pronounced in open Court on 15/03/2021
Sd/- Sd/- (C.N. PRASAD) (M.BALAGANESH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai; Dated 15/03/2021 KARUNA, sr.ps
M/s. Shankeshwar Real Estate Company
More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
- Shalin Jayantbhai Desai, Vadodara vs ACIT, Circle-4(2), Vadodara Present…ITA 2569/AHD/2026[2010-11]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2010-11
- Neo Structo Construction P. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs The Pr. CIT- 3, AhmedabadITA 1216/AHD/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2370/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2369/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Rajkalpana Travels PVT. LTD. vs. Commissioner CGST, Delhi North CommissionerateDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Mahaveer Ispat Traders vs. Principal Commissioner Dgst Delhi Department Of Trade And Taxes Gnctd & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Modern Engineers And Contractors vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St)Andhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- K Madhusudan Reddy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- Sandeep Ranjan Rout vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026