M/S GANPATI CARRING CORPORATION,NAVI MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1, PANVEL, PANVEL

PDF · subscribers
ITA 332/PUN/2020Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 July 2022AY 2015-20164 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal held that a disallowance made on an ad-hoc basis does not automatically attract a penalty under Section 271(1)(c). The imposition of penalty was found to be erroneous in the given facts and circumstances.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal concerns a penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The penalty was based on quantum disallowances made on an ad-hoc basis for expenses like diesel, oil, and repairs.

What were the issues?

Whether an ad-hoc disallowance of expenses warrants the imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, PUNE

Before: SHRI S.S.GODARA, JM & SHRI DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh F Agarwal
For Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Hearing: 20.06.2022Pronounced: 29.07.2022

आदेश / ORDER PER S. S. GODARA, JM :

1.

This assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2015-16 is directed against the CIT(A)-2, Thane’s order dated 07/01/2020 passed in case No. 10223/2018-19 involving proceeding u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short "the Act”. Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

Coming to the assessee’s sole substantive grievance that both the learned lower authorities have erred in law and on facts in imposing section 271(1)(c) penalty of Rs.35,62,080/-, we note at the outset that the same hardly requires us to delve deeper in the relevant factual matrix. Suffice to say, the same pertains to four items of quantum disallowance involving diesel and oil, motor/ lorry , trip, tyre/tube and repairs as well as maintenance expenses disallowed on ad-hoc basis @ 5% , 10% , 20%, & 5% in latter twin instances each; respectively.

3.

Mr. Desai vehemently argued in support of the impugned penalty that the assessee’s above quantum deduction claim had seen very much abnormal fluctuations and therefore, both the learned lower authorities have rightly impose the impugned penalty in given facts and circumstances.

4 . We have heard both the parties reiterating their respective pleadings against and in support of impugned penalty and find no merit in the Revenue’s stand. We make it clear first of all that hon’ble apex court’s landmark decision in CIT Vs Reliance Petro products (2010) 322 ITR 158(SC) has settled the law each and every disallowance/ addition made in quantum proceedings does not automatically attract the impugned penal provision since both these statutory provisions involve parallel adjudication. Coming to the relevant facts, there is hardly any dispute that the learned lower authorities had disallowed the assessee’s deduction claims on ad-hoc basis only at varying rates (supra) and majority of the extent thereof already stood accepted. We conclude in this factual backdrop that both the lower authorities have erred in law and imposing the impugned penalty in the given facts and circumstances of the case. The same is directed to be deleted.

5.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed in above terms.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on this 29th day of July, 2022.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →