MOHD. FAROOQ SARANG,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 36, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4453/MUM/2015Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 November 2019AY 2003-044 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 noted that the quantum additions, against which the penalties were levied, had already been deleted by a previous Tribunal order. Consequently, the penalties could not survive.

What were the facts?

The assessee was aggrieved by the levy and confirmation of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for assessment years 2003-04, 2006-07, and 2007-08. The penalties were imposed based on quantum additions made by the Assessing Officer.

What were the issues?

Whether penalties under Section 271(1)(c) can survive when the underlying quantum additions have been deleted by the appellate authority.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, MUMBAI

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

For Appellant: Shri Piyush Chhajed, Ld.AR, Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik, Ld.DR
For Respondent: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik, Ld.DR

Heard together (3 matters)

I.T.A. No. 4453/Mum/2015
I.T.A. No. 4454/Mum/2015
I.T.A. No. 4455/Mum/2015

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

Per Bench: -

1. 1. In the aforesaid appeals for Assessment Years [in short referred to as ‘AY’] 2003-04, 2006-07 & 2007-08, the assessee is aggrieved by levy as well as confirmation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c). The quantum of penalty for AY 2003-04 is Rs.23.98 Lacs, Rs.13.19 Lacs for AY 2006-07 & Rs. 39.11 Lacs for AY 2007-08.

2. The learned Authorized Representative for Assessee (AR), at the outset, drew our attention to the fact that quantum additions against which the impugned penalties were imposed, were contested by the assessee before this Tribunal vide & others for AYs 2003-04 to 2007-08 common order dated 01/07/2019. The attention has been drawn to the fact that quantum additions for years under consideration, has already been deleted by the Tribunal, finding merits in assessee’s submissions and therefore, the impugned penalties would not survive. A copy of the order has been placed on record. The learned DR could not controvert the said fact.

3. In view of the admitted position, since quantum additions have already been deleted by Tribunal, the penalties would not survive in all the three years. Hence by deleting the same, we allow all the appeals.

4. All the appeals stand allowed. to 4455/Mum/2015 Shri Mohd. Farooq Sarang Assessment Years: 2003-04, 2006-07 & 2007-08 Order pronounced in the open court on 21st November, 2019 Sd/- Sd/- (Mahavir Singh) (Manoj Kumar Aggarwal) �ाियक सद� / Judicial Member लेखा सद� / Accountant Member मुंबई Mumbai; िदनांक Dated : 21/11/2019 Sr.PS:-**PP,SPS आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेि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,

उप/सहायकपंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.Registrar) आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, मुंबई / ITAT, Mumbai. to 4455/Mum/2015 Shri Mohd. Farooq Sarang Assessment Years: 2003-04, 2006-07 & 2007-08 Sr. No. Details Date Initials Designation 1 Draft dictation sheets are attached/Part dictation copy 21-11-2019 P.P Sr.PS encl. Order final by Hon. AM Draft dictated on 3 Draft Placed before author 21-11-2019 P.P -“- 4 Draft proposed & placed before the Second Member 5 Draft discussed/approved by Second Member 6 Approved Draft comes to the Sr.PS/PS 22-11-19 P.P 7 Order pronouncement on 21-11-19 P.P 8 File sent to the Bench Clerk 22-11-19 P.P 9 Date on which the file goes to the Head clerk 10 Date on which file goes to the AR 11 Date of Dispatch of order

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 →