ITO E-2(3), MUMBAI vs. SHRI RAM NAGAR TRUST NO.1, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 74/MUM/2019Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 October 2020AY 2010-114 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 once the additions/disallowances in the quantum proceedings are deleted, the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) does not arise. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) deleting the penalty was upheld.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the deletion of penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c). The additions/disallowances made in the quantum assessment had been deleted by the Tribunal and upheld by the High Court.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be levied when the underlying addition/disallowance has been deleted by higher authorities.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 11(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HONBLE & SHRI N.K. PRADHAN, HONBLE

For Appellant: Shri Ruturaj H. Gurjar
For Respondent: Shri Udaya B. Jakke
Hearing: 30.01.2020Pronounced: 23.10.2020

O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD (JM) 1. This appeal is filed by the revenue against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 1, Mumbai [hereinafter in short “Ld.CIT(A)”] dated 17.10.2018 for the Assessment Year 2010-11 in deleting the penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act.

(A.Y: 2010-11) M/s. Shri Ram Nagar Trust No.1 2. At the outset, Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that in this case addition/disallowance made in the quantum assessment has been deleted by the Tribunal and the appeal filed by the Revenue is also dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court in Income Tax Appeal No. 1160 of 2017 dated 18.06.2019. Copy of the order is placed on record.

3.

Ld. DR fairly submitted that quantum has been deleted by the Tribunal and appeal of the revenue was dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court.

4.

We have heard the rival submissions, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in quantum proceedings. On a perusal of the orders of the lower authorities and the decision of the Hon'ble High Court we find that the disallowance i.e., claim for accumulation u/s. 11(2) denied in the assessment proceedings by the Assessing Officer has been allowed by the Tribunal which was sustained by the Hon'ble High Court by rejecting the appeal of the Revenue. We also find that the Ld.CIT(A) deleted the penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act since the Tribunal had deleted the disallowance made in quantum proceedings. When once the addition/disallowance made in quantum proceedings are deleted the (A.Y: 2010-11) M/s. Shri Ram Nagar Trust No.1 question of levy of penalty does not arise. Thus, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Ld.CIT(A). Grounds raised by the revenue are rejected.

5.

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.

6.

Before parting, we noticed that this appeal was heard on 30.01.2020 and the pronouncement is delayed due to lockdown in view of COVID-19 pandemic. The pronouncement is as per Rule 34(5) of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 and Hon'ble Bombay High Court decision vide orders dated 15.04.2020 and 15.06.2020 extending the time bound periods specified by Hon'ble High Court by removing the period under lockdown. This aspect was also dealt with in detail by the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in case of DCIT v. JSW Steel Vide order dated 14.05.2020 in ITA.No. 6264/Mum/2018.

Order pronounced on 23.10.2020 as per Rule 34(4) of ITAT Rules by placing the pronouncement list in the notice board.

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 →