ASST CIT CIR 2, THANE vs. SALASAR DEVELOPERS, THANE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3605/MUM/2016Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 February 2020AY 2007-083 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 appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable due to a low tax effect, which was below ₹.50 Lakhs. The Tribunal also noted that none of the exceptions in the relevant CBDT circular were applicable.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed the deletion of a penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The penalty was related to a disallowance made under Section 80IB(10) of the Act.

What were the issues?

Whether the Revenue's appeal is maintainable given the low tax effect and the nature of the penalty levied. Whether the deletion of penalty by the CIT(A) was erroneous.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 80IB(10)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON’BLE & SHRI M. BALAGANESH, HON’BLE

For Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar
Hearing: 04.02.2020Pronounced: 04.02.2020

O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD (JM) This appeal is filed by the revenue against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Thane [hereinafter in short “Ld.CIT(A)”] dated 22.02.2016 for the A.Y. 2007-08.

2.

The Revenue in its appeal has raised following grounds: - "1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty amounting to Rs. 36,65,112/- levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act.

(A.Y: 2007-08) M/s. Salasar Developers 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty despite the fact that provisions of Section 80IB(10)(a) and 80IB(10)(c) were clearly violated by the assessee.

3.

Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty despite the fact that the inaccurate particulars filed by the assessee falsely claiming deduction u/s 80IB(10) were revealed upon site visit conducted during the search action which clearly revealed the assessee's intention to misrepresent the facts.

4. The order of the CIT(A) may be vacated and that of the Assessing Officer may be restored.

5. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or delete any ground of appeal.".

3. At the time of hearing, when it was pointed out to the Ld. DR that the revenue effect in this appeal is below ₹.50 Lakhs the Ld. DR though agreed that tax effect on the issue in the present appeal is below ₹.50 Lacs and in view of the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 dated 08.08.2019 in F.No.279/Misc.142/2007-ITJ (Pt), the appeal of the Revenue is not maintainable, it is submitted that this appeal is filed against deletion of penalty of ₹.36,65,112/- levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act on the disallowance made U/s. 80IB(10) of the Act.

4.

Heard Ld. DR, perused the grounds of appeal and the orders of the authorities below. We find that the tax effect in this appeal is less than ₹.50 Lakhs and therefore the appeal of the revenue is not maintainable on account of low tax effect in view of the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019

(A.Y: 2007-08) M/s. Salasar Developers dated 08.08.2019. We also observed that since the issue is in respect of levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act and none of the exception in the circular are applicable, the appeal is not maintainable.

5.

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed.

Order Pronounced in the Open Court on the 04th February, 2020

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 →