SIKA PROPERTIES P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 3(3)(2), MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that since the quantum addition was set aside and remitted back to the Assessing Officer, the penalty levied on that addition could not be sustained. Therefore, the issue of penalty also needed to be remitted to the Assessing Officer.
What were the facts?
The Assessing Officer made additions on account of house property income, which the assessee treated as business income. The ITAT had previously set aside the assessment order to the Assessing Officer to examine the validity of the notice issued under Section 143(2). Despite this, the CIT(A) confirmed the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c).
What were the issues?
Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be sustained when the underlying assessment addition has been set aside and remitted for further examination by the Assessing Officer.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC-I” Bench, Mumbai
Heard together (2 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
Brief facts of the case pertaining to penalty are that in the assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer made addition on account of house property income. The assessee has offered lease rental income as business income. The Assessing Officer treated it as house property income. When the quantum appeal reached ITAT, the ITAT set aside the issue relating to issue of notice to the assessee u/s. 143(2) of the I.T. Act to the file of the Assessing Officer. Before the order of the ITAT the Assessing Officer also levied penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act on the impugned additions. When the matter reached to the learned CIT(A), though he noted that the ITAT remitted the issue regarding service of notice to the file of the Assessing Officer, still he proceeded to confirm the penalty.
2 Sika Properties Pvt. Ltd.
Against this order the assessee is in appeal before the ITAT. I have heard learned Departmental Representative. None appeared on behalf of the assessee. I note that in quantum appeal, the ITAT has set aside the assessment order to the file of the Assessing Officer to examine the assessee’s plea as to whether there is proper service of notice u/s. 143(2) of the IT Act or not. In that view of the matter addition no longer survives as it is. Hence, there is no question of sustaining penalty, once the matter is again remitted to the file of the Assessing Officer. Learned CIT(A) has clearly erred in sustaining the penalty on the basis of addition which is again subject matter of Assessing Officer’s consideration pursuing to ITAT remitting the matter. In these circumstances in my considered opinion interest of justice demands that since the matter is before the Assessing Officer in as much as issue of service of notice has been remitted by the ITAT to the file of the Assessing Officer, the issue of levy of penalty also needs to be remitted to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer shall take decision in this regard after following the ITAT’s direction pertaining to the quantum appeal.
In the result, these appeals by the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced under Rule 34(4) of the ITAT Rules on 15.10.2020.
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 →- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Rohit Medical Systems vs. Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Services Tax And Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Shivam Kumar vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Rajkalpana Travels PVT. LTD. vs. Commissioner CGST, Delhi North CommissionerateDelhi · 28 Oct 2026