M/S LYKA LABS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT -10(2)(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1683/MUM/2020Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 March 2021AY 2010-115 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not discussed the factual aspects of the penalty levied, rendering the order non-speaking. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeals were filed with a delay of 29 days, which was condoned by the tribunal due to the pandemic. The core issue was the confirmation of penalty under section 271(1)(c) by the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) passed a speaking order on the facts while confirming the penalty under section 271(1)(c).

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, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VP & SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM

For Appellant: Shri Jayesh Dadia, AR
For Respondent: Shri Brajendra Kumar, DR
Hearing: 08.12.2020Pronounced: 05.03.2021

Heard together (3 matters)

ITA No. 1683/Mum/2020
ITA No. 1684/Mum/2020
ITA No. 1682/Mum/2020

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

3.

The only common issue in these appeals of assessee is against the order of CIT(A) confirming the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act amounting to ₹80,85,480/- in Assessment Year 2010-11, amounting to ₹1,55,39,749/-for Assessment Year 2011-12 and ₹77,23,030/- for Assessment Year 2014-15. For this, assessee has raised the identical grounds and hence, we will take the grounds as raised in Assessment Year 2010-11 in . The relevant ground read as under: - “1. The penalty proceedings is bad in law and on the facts of the case. The show cause notice is defective.

2.

The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts of the case in confirming the action of Assessing Officer levying penalty of ₹80,85,480/- under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The actin is unjustified and unwarranted.

3, You petitioner crave leave to add, amend, alter and/ or withdraw any or all the aforesaid ground of appeal.”

4.

During the course of argument and reading of the order of CIT(A) it is noticed that CIT(A) has decided the penalty and passed the order

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 →