TARUNA KATARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 19(2)(2), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4894/MUM/2018Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 October 2020AY 2005-064 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 since the quantum appeal of the assessee for the said assessment year was allowed by the Hon'ble Tribunal, the penalty levied cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against a penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The penalty was confirmed by the CIT(A) as unexplained investments. The assessee argued that the quantum appeal for the assessment year was already allowed by the ITAT.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under section 271(1)(c) can be sustained when the quantum appeal leading to the assessment has been allowed. Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty without considering the outcome of the quantum appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “E” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE

For Respondent: Shri Amit Pratap Singh, DR
Pronounced: 21/10/2020

20/10/2020 सुनवाई क� तार�ख / Date of Hearing घोषणा क� तार�ख /Date of Pronouncement 21/10/2020 आदेश / O R D E R

PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE - JM:

1.

The assessee has filed the appeal against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-34, Mumbai passed u/s 271(1)(c) and 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

Taruna Kataria, Mumbai. - 2 - “1.a The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act of Rs. 5,58,990/- as unexplained investments. b. The Ld. CIT (A) failed to appreciate that appellant has submitted full details of long term capital gain i.e. sales bills, demat statements, broker notes, purchase bills etc. c. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciate that appellant has filed appeal before ITAT and partly hearing completed, hence quantum is still not fixed. d. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciate that appellant has filed appeal before ITAT and partly hearing completed, hence quantum is still not fixed.

2.

The Ld. CIT(A) not considering that A.O has not given opportunity to the appellant before levying the penalty.

3.

The learned reserve the right to add, alter or amend any ground of appeal”.

2. At the time of hearing, the LdAR submitted that the quantum appeal for the said assessment year was allowed by the Hon’ble Tribunal in vide order dated 05.09.2019 and referred to the copy of ITAT order. Hence, the penalty levied shall not be sustained. Contra, the Ld. DR accepted the fact of relief allowed to the assessee by the Hon’ble Tribunal.

Taruna Kataria, Mumbai. - 3 - 4. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. On perusal of the facts as envisaged by the Ld AR and supported by the order of the Hon’ble Tribunal dated 05.09.2019 in allowing the quantum appeal of the assessee. The penalty levied by the A.O and confirmed by the CIT(A) cannot be sustained. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) and allow the grounds of appeal of the assessee.

5.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

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 →