INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3(4), THANE vs. SMT.USHA GOPALJI NIGAM, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1182/MUM/2019Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 September 2020AY 2010-113 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 the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable due to a low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 17/2019. The appeal was dismissed on this technical ground.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed the deletion of penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) for alleged bogus purchases. The penalty was initially levied on the assessee but later deleted by the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the Revenue's appeal is maintainable given the low tax effect as per CBDT circulars.

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, “F” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VP & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM

For Respondent: Ms. Samatha Mullamudi-Ld. DR

आयकरअपील सं./ (िनधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year: 2010-11) ITO-Ward-3(4) Smt. Usha Gopalji Nigam Room No.9, 6th Floor बनाम/ 5, Satyam Industrial Estate B-Wing, Wagle Industrial Estate Pokhran Road No.1 Vs. Thane (W)-400 604 Upvan, Thane (W)-400 606. PAN: AABPN-4014-E (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��थ� / Respondent) : Assessee by : None Revenue by : Ms. Samatha Mullamudi-Ld. DR सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 29/09/2020 Date of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 29/09/2020 Date of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member): - 1. Aforesaid appeal by revenue for Assessment Year [in short referred to as ‘AY’] 2010-11 contest the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income- Tax (Appeals)-2, Thane [in short referred to as ‘CIT(A)’], Appeal No. dated 26/12/2018 qua deletion of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for Rs.2,14,537/-. At the time of hearing, none appeared for assessee. However, the matter was proceeded with since the revenue’s appeal, Smt. Usha Gopalji Nigam Assessment Year :2010-11 prima-facie, is not maintainable in terms of low tax effect circular No. 17/2019 dated 08/08/2019 [F.No.279/Misc. 142/2007-TTJ(Pt.) issued by CBDT.

2.

The material on record would show that the penalty has been levied on account of addition of alleged bogus purchases aggregating to Rs.7,01,990/- which has been accepted by the assessee. Consequently, the impugned penalty was levied vide order dated 25/08/2014. However, upon further appeal, Ld. CIT(A) deleted the same, inter-alia, by relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT V/s Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd. (2010 322 ITR 158). Aggrieved the revenue in in further appeal before us.

3.

We find that the quantum of penalty as disputed by the revenue is below threshold monetary limit of Rs.50 Lacs and the appeal is not maintainable in terms of recently issued low tax effect Circular No. 17/2019 dated 08/08/2019 [F.No.279/Misc. 142/2007-TTJ(Pt.) issued by CBDT. This recent circular further enhances the monetary limit fixed in earlier Circular No.3 of 2018 dated 11/07/2018 issued by CBDT as amended on 20/08/2018. In view of the same, the appeal is not maintainable.

4.

At the same time, a liberty is given to revenue to seek recall of the appeal, if at a later stage, it is found that the matter is covered by any exceptions provided in any of the circular or in case the tax effect as agitated by revenue exceeds the prescribed monetary limit.

Smt. Usha Gopalji Nigam Assessment Year :2010-11

5.

In the result, the appeal stands dismissed.

Order pronounced on 29th September, 2020.

Sd/- Sd/- (Mahavir Singh) (Manoj Kumar Aggarwal) उपा�� / Vice President लेखा सद� / Accountant Member मुंबई Mumbai; िदनांक Dated : 29/09/2020 Sr.PS, Jaisy Varghese आदेशकी�ितिलिपअ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ�/ The Appellant 1. ��थ�/ The Respondent 2. आयकरआयु�(अपील) / The CIT(A) 3. आयकरआयु�/ CIT– concerned 4. िवभागीय�ितिनिध, आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, मुंबई/ DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गाड�फाईल / Guard File 6. आदेशानुसार/ BY 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 →